Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea

173
Despite the fact that surface ships with guided missile weapons have powerful air defense systems, aviation in the war at sea continues and will continue to maintain its importance as an intelligence and strike weapon. The presence of carrier-based (ship) aviation significantly increases the range of detection of the enemy, and the search capabilities of a ship or group of ships, and the range to which a ship’s formation can attack a detected target, and anti-submarine combat capabilities.

Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea

Deck (ship) aviation is not only about airplanes. RCC launch "Sea Venom" from a helicopter SH-60




However, decked aviation, firstly, requires aircraft carrier ships, and, secondly, it costs a lot of money. And it is not known what is more expensive - planes fight, pilots die and retire, and maintaining deck aviation “in good shape” requires really large funds, even without regard to the cost of aircraft carriers.

Fleets, limited in financing or limited by the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry and unable to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier ship (or at least a universal landing ship with the ability to base aircraft), do not have the ability to have their own deck aircraft or it is limited.

Alas, this applies to Russia fully. Our ship aviation is experiencing frankly bad times - the only aircraft carrier in repair, the completion dates of which are very vague, the intensity of combat training leaves much to be desired, and the rate of renewal of the aircraft fleet is insufficient. As a class, there are no naval AWACS aircraft, ship transport and anti-submarine aircraft.

And, most importantly, there are almost no ships for this.

In general, such a pile of problems is simply physically impossible to solve quickly even with the necessary money, which is not and will not be in the foreseeable future. And this means that we must either abandon ship aviation altogether or look for some way out that will allow us to “close” this direction at a low cost, to look for some “asymmetric” solution.

Currently, there is a technical opportunity to partially compensate for the lack of full-fledged naval aviation in Russia by the widespread use of special naval combat helicopters that could carry out their tasks based on the surface ships included in the ship’s strike groups.

Can helicopters aboard URF ships and landing ships available to the Russian Navy take on some of the tasks that are supposed to be accomplished in a comprehensive manner by forces based on full-fledged aircraft carrier ships - both ship planes and helicopters?

Answer: yes, they can. And this is confirmed not only by various theoretical studies and teachings, but also relatively “fresh” by historical by the standards of combat experience. It makes sense to analyze this experience and, through its “prism," evaluate what capabilities the Russian Navy possesses, or rather, can possess, if a decision is made on the widespread use of different types of helicopters during naval operations (and not just on occasional anti-submarine Ka-27 flights with BOD, corvettes and cruisers). First, a little theory and technical details.

Rotorcraft fighters and their capabilities.


Combat instructions of the US Navy OPNAV (Operation Planning, Naval - the American analogue of our General Staff of the Navy) oblige helicopter aviation of the Navy to be able to carry out more than two hundred types of combat missions, which can be summarized in the following groups:

1. Air operations against sea mines (see article “Death from nowhere. About the mine war at sea. " 2 part).
2. Attacks on surface targets
3. Anti-submarine warfare.
4. Transport tasks
5. Search and rescue operations.
6. Performing combat missions during special operations (Direct action - direct action. For example, the evacuation of a special forces group under fire).
7. Evacuation and transportation of the wounded and sick (including during the "Operations other than war", for example during emergency natural actions).
8. Evacuation of personnel from hazardous areas (no search)
9. Exploration above the sea
10. Attacks on ground targets.

As you can see, this does not include the conduct of landing operations, which in the US Navy carry out helicopters of the Marine Corps.

In general, it is worth agreeing with the Americans that such a "gentleman's set" should be able to carry out naval helicopter aviation, if its development is maximized in combat capabilities. Consider how this is technically carried out and immediately stipulate what limitations the Navy will encounter when trying to acquire the same capabilities.

Let's start with mine action.

In the US Navy, there are two helicopters oriented to combat sea mines. The first is the MN-53Е, which is mainly used as a towing helicopter mine trawl, and the second is the MH-60S equipped with anti-mine weapons, which is part of the anti-mine “module” for LCS ships. The latter carries on board disposable mine destroyers, discharged into the sea directly from the air and controlled from the helicopter itself. As a means of detecting mines, a laser system should be used, capable of “viewing” the water column in search of mines at the bottom. Alas for the Americans, but so far the system has not reached combat readiness. MN-60S can be based on absolutely any warship, and MN-53E - only on the UDC, DVKD or aircraft carriers in general, however, the latter is not entirely typical of a mine helicopter. Someone may notice that we can do without basic helicopters, but this is not so.

In addition to war, the Navy should be ready to carry out humanitarian operations in any part of the planet, including mine clearance. Thus, ship helicopters are definitely needed.

What limitations do we have?

Firstly, the Ka-27PS is the only serial platform on the basis of which you can quickly create a towing vehicle with the possibility of ship-based. In the future, perhaps, the Lamprey will take its place, but so far this is more of a project than a real helicopter.

Secondly, the only ships on which mine-based aircraft can be based without claims from other personnel regarding habitability are the 11711 BDKs, which have a hangar and sufficient internal volumes to accommodate crews and various equipment. There are two such ships in the Navy. Two more completely different ships, but with the same project number, were laid on April 22 of 2019 of the year. While they are enveloped in the "fog of the unknown." It is known that the project is not completed, there is no clarity as to which power plant will be used on ships, and in general, this tab was a profanity. The joy was somewhat premature. Alas, these are the facts that have already become known today. Therefore, while these ships are not worth taking into account. Let them begin to build at least at first.

However, it is important for Russia to have anti-mine forces outside of any operations offshore. This means that we need to do trawl towing helicopters in any case, and make them much more than can be placed on ships.

Thus, the combat use of helicopters as part of anti-mine forces based on surface ships will simply need to be worked out on actual BDKs. They have already been built, and helicopters - in any case, build.

With striking surface targets, everything is somewhat more complicated.

On the one hand, Russia has a very good specialized attack helicopter Ka-52K Katran. This is, without exaggeration, a unique machine; moreover, its potential is not revealed at all. So that these helicopters can be used in a war at sea against a more or less serious enemy, they need to replace the radar. There is a project to integrate the Zhuk-AE based N010 radar into this helicopter, it was generally conceived with it, and these developments will need to be implemented, otherwise the role of the Ka-52K as a strike machine will be seriously limited. If the helicopter modernization is completed, it will become a truly deadly “player” in the naval warfare. Especially considering the possible use of the X-35 missile from this helicopter. However, the use of combat attack helicopters in naval battles will be considered separately.


Ka-52K Katran with anti-ship missiles X-35. They didn’t guess, though with the radar.


However, there is a problem along the way.

Since we almost do not have aircraft carriers, we will have to use combat helicopters on combat ships on surface ships with guided missile weapons (URO). Moreover, taking into account the fact that it will not always be possible to use the BDK together with the URO ships (if there is no need for operations against the coast or clearance, it is undesirable to include the BDK as part of the operational connection - it cannot tear itself away from the enemy with the URO ships due to the low speed and worse seaworthiness). And each place in the hangar occupied by a specialized attack helicopter will mean that there will be one less anti-submarine helicopter in the connection - and indeed, submarines today are considered in most countries as the main means of fighting surface ships.

Is this acceptable?

Not in vain in the US Navy (if America has a variety of attack helicopters) on the URO ships are based almost exclusively on SН / MH-60 of various modifications. When the Americans needed a means to attack small-sized weakly protected targets, such as motorboats with terrorists, it was precisely these helicopters that the Hellfire ATGMs "got up." When the US Navy needed the ability to deliver air strikes from armed helicopters on armed surface ships, it was on these helicopters that the AGM-114 Penguin anti-ship missiles were installed. Why is that?


Sea Haw with Hellfire ATGM. We pay attention to the optoelectronic turret.



RCC release "Penguin"



Starting engine RCC "Penguin"


Because there is no one to rely on at sea, and a universal helicopter is more useful than a specialized attack helicopter. So, the same anti-submarine Ka-27 can, if necessary, transport people lying on the wounded, a spare part from ship to ship. At the same time, there is no urgent need for armor, a gun and ejection seats for a “purely” marine helicopter. Ka-52K, with all its potential, will not be able to carry out transport tasks and will not be able to perform PLO tasks. While armed with missiles and having the corresponding on-board radio-electronic equipment, the Ka-27 version can do everything. And this is not an exaggeration.

Ka-27 was used to test the RCC X-35. This helicopter is systematically involved in solving transport and even landing tasks during the exercises of the Navy. And it’s not worth talking about anti-submarine missions - this is its direct purpose, although, frankly, its GAS in modern conditions is worthless even with the modernized version. The helicopter needs to be redone, but the trick is that the domestic aviation industry is quite capable of it. There are all technologies and developments, the problem is of an administrative nature common to the Navy.


Test launch of anti-ship missiles X-35 from Ka-27 helicopter. Alas, for some reason these works did not receive development



The prototype of the X-35 suspension to the Ka-27 helicopter


This does not mean that Ka-52K is not applicable in operations in the far sea zone, it means that most often there will be no place for it. But, firstly, sometimes there will still be, secondly, there are still joint operations with the near sea zone, and in the coastal zone, where helicopters can be rotated on ships in the same corvettes. There is a threat of submarines - on board the Ka-27, there is no threat of submarines, we change it to the Ka-52K, which is used to strike enemy ships and along the coast. Then we change again.

One way or another, but in order to gain full-fledged capabilities to destroy surface targets, it is necessary to modernize the Ka-52K, and create a new modification of the Ka-27 capable of carrying both anti-submarine weapons, ASGs, buoys for searching for submarines, and guided missiles of various types, especially anti-ship, and perhaps anti-radar, machine guns in the door, and even better - in the doors facing both sides.

For transport and rescue tasks, you need a winch for lifting goods and the ability to place a stretcher, you need a thermal imager that can detect a person on the surface of the water and a television viewing system that works at low light levels. Modern electronics makes it possible to “pack” all this into an 12 ton helicopter. It may be worthwhile to mount a spotlight.

In an amusing way, the same thermal imager, winch, pylons for rocket weapons and machine guns are needed to use the helicopter in the interests of special forces. Of course, infrared jamming systems will also be needed to protect against heat-guided missiles and radio jamming systems, but this is a priori needed on any military helicopter, moreover, it is already used in the aerospace complex, mastered by industry, produced and does not weigh very much. The defense system "Vitebsk" for example, showed itself very well in Syria. During the battles for Palmyra, Anna-News reports contained footage of how fighters launched missiles from our MANPADS on our helicopters, but they simply flew by without capturing a helicopter equipped with a defense system. There is no problem equipping the Ka-27 helicopter with the same.

Of the remaining tasks, separate mention is only reconnaissance and strikes on the ground.

Reconnaissance missions over the sea cannot be solved without an airborne radar. Moreover, for a naval strike group, as a reconnaissance vehicle, it’s far more “interesting” not to use the Ka-27, even if equipped with a modern radar (presumably the same as the hypothetical modernized Ka-52K), but a Ka-31 AWACS or some kind of its further development.

It is the AWACS helicopter that may not be enough for a naval strike group to, for example, detect in advance the work of enemy air reconnaissance or the enemy’s helicopter at low altitude, preparing to launch anti-ship missiles from ships at a safe distance, and most importantly - it’s much easier to hit an air attack with it. Although he unmasks the connection, he often can’t do without such a tool.


Helicopter DRLO Ka-35. Created, tested in Syria, adopted, but ...


There are nothing new on board our surface ships of AWACS helicopters. In 1971, the Ka-25Ts helicopter was put into service with the aviation of the USSR Navy, capable of detecting a large surface ship at a distance of up to 250 kilometers from the helicopter by combining flight altitude and a powerful radar. And these helicopters were based both on Soviet cruisers and on the BOD, providing the naval strike or search-strike groups of the Navy the opportunity to “look beyond the horizon,” and it is very far away even by today's standards. Ka-25Ts provided not only reconnaissance, but also targeted launches of heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles fleet long distances.


Ka-xnumc


At present, the Ka-35 helicopter tested in Syria is ready for mass production in Russia. Its combat capabilities are incomparably higher than that of the old Ka-25TS or even Ka-31, used from the Admiral Kuznetsov. Such a helicopter is necessary for any naval strike group, which leaves to "work" in a distant sea or ocean zone. And not in a single quantity.

Attacks on ground targets are also not easy. For them, the Ka-52K suits much better than the unarmored and flimsy Ka-27, or any of its modifications, for example the old Ka-29, which is still stored in the Navy.

But, as already mentioned, this helicopter is too specialized and there will not always be the opportunity to sacrifice a place in the hangar that could be occupied by a modernized Ka-27, capable of fulfilling missile defense tasks and striking surface targets, carrying people and cargo, saving those in distress and to land special forces in secluded corners of enemy territory. In principle, Ka-27 can be used for strikes along the coast. But for this, you will have to equip it with the Hermes long-range ATGM and ensure interaction with UAVs, for example, the Orlan type, the military use of which the Navy has already worked out.

Otherwise, you should abandon helicopter attacks on coastal targets, and use naval artillery and cruise missiles, if possible. Although, if the operation will involve landing ships capable of carrying helicopters, it will be quite possible to use them. Then the search and rescue tasks will be assigned to the Ka-27, which are based on other surface ships, and the drums - to the Ka-52K from the landing ships. Currently, without taking into account the possible participation in the operations of Admiral Kuznetsov, the Navy can provide combat use of four such helicopters from landing ships of the Ivan Gren type, of which two can take off simultaneously. Everyone else will have to fly from warships or patrol ships.

It is of interest to give the combat group from the BDK also patrol ships of the 22160 project. Not being useful in anything, these ships, however, can provide the basing of helicopters and UAVs "Horizon". True, there are no conditions for storing significant quantities of aviation weapons on board, so they will have to fly to some other ship to suspend weapons, which is, of course, terribly inconvenient, and to some extent shameful, but we have other ships the right amount is not, so ...

It is a completely different matter when you need to attack targets on the coast near your territory. Then, the naval warships operating near the coast will in fact be for Ka-52K helicopters a kind of analogue of reserve airfields or jump airfields. To practice this kind of action, everything is now.

Let's sum up.

In order for ship helicopters to take on part of the tasks of ship aviation based on an aircraft carrier when this aircraft carrier itself is not there, the Navy needs to:

1. Upgrade the Ka-52K, bringing its performance characteristics to the initially desired (full radar).
2. Create a new version of the Ka-27 helicopter, similar in its capabilities to the American Sea Hawk helicopter - anti-aircraft missiles, attacks on surface and coastal targets using anti-tank systems, attacks on surface targets using anti-ship missiles, transport and search and rescue missions, delivery of SP groups to shore and back. Such helicopters should be equipped with modern defensive systems and sighting and search systems.
3. Create a modification of the trawl towing helicopter based on the Ka-27, and the trawl for it.
4. Produce enough AWACS helicopters.
5. Work out the main possible scenarios for the combat use of ship helicopters in naval warfare and fix this practice in charters.

All these tasks do not seem to be unsolvable.

Carriers of various purposes in operations in the DMZ will be URO ships, landing ships and patrol (if any) ships.

In general, the Black Sea Fleet today is able to deploy helicopters in full-fledged URO ships in the distant sea and ocean zones of the 4 (one on the cruiser Moscow and one each on three frigates of the 11356 project). Defective and non-combat 22160 project patrol ships can carry a couple more helicopters, and in a few years there will be six of them. Unfortunately, due to problems with speed, the “patrolmen” cannot operate together with full-fledged warships, but, nevertheless, we will fix an emergency opportunity for the Black Sea Fleet to deploy ten helicopters in the DMZ.

There are also five helicopter carriers in the Baltic Fleet - TFR “Yaroslav the Wise and the 20380 project corvettes. The destroyer "Persistent", which will soon be out of repair, can only be listed as a helicopter carrier, although in an emergency you can deploy a helicopter on it if there is temporary shelter. After the TFR “Undaunted” comes out of repair, one more carrier will be added, and approximately by the end of 2022 there will be two more corvettes, in total there will be eight warships capable of carrying helicopters and providing for their combat use, and one ship that is limited for this purpose. Provided, of course, that one of the listed ships will not be in the next long-term repair.

In the Northern Fleet, the Peter the Great nuclear-powered cruiser (2 helicopters), RKR Marshal Ustinov (1 helicopters), two BODs (generally 4 helicopters), and the frigate Admiral Gorshkov (1 helicopters) are in operation. Soon, Admiral Kasatonov will be added to them, with another helicopter. Two more BODs are under repair, one of which, however, got stuck in the repair for a very long time, and the nuclear-powered cruiser Admiral Nakhimov with a couple of places.


Ka-27 and Ka-25Ts on the deck of the nuclear missile cruiser project 1144


After one BOD and Nakhimov go out of repair, it is possible to increase the total number of helicopter seats to 13 units, with the BDK of the 11711 project, which can already be considered a fait accompli, 17, if Chabanenko is repaired by some miracle, then 2, in total 19. Naturally, this is without Kuznetsov, who, in theory, when bringing ship regiments to the required level of combat capability, will solve the aviation problem much more efficiently.

In the Pacific Ocean there is a Varyag RKR, three BODs and two corvettes, which in total gives 9 helicopters; this year, the Thundering one will give another helicopter, only 10. After the modernization of the Marshal Shaposhnikov BOD, a couple more places will be added, all 13, and by the end of the 2022 of the year three more corvettes will be added, this is another 3 helicopter and all 16 machines. Plus “conditional medium” - EM “Fast”.

We do not consider the auxiliary fleet, although there are also ships with hangars there.

Много это или мало?

The KMG, which has 16 helicopters, can provide continuous combat duty for one or two helicopters in readiness 1 number or in the air around the clock. As you can see, from the composition of the Navy it is quite possible to form a compound with such a number of helicopters and deploy it on any possible theater of operations.

How many ship-based helicopters can fight in a modern war? The American experience of using helicopters from the decks of large ships, such as UDC or aircraft carriers, is not applicable to us - we do not have such ships as they have, and will not be in the foreseeable future. But there is another experience. Deck helicopters based on URO ships quite successfully fought. And even though this experience is also American, but here it is quite applicable to us. Let's take it apart.

Persian Gulf - 91


In preparation for repelling the Allied air attack, the Iraqis decided to forward their air defense assets to the sea, thus creating a defense line extended over Iraqi territory. The bulk of the air defense systems that were used for this task was concentrated on eleven offshore oil production platforms of the Ad-Daura oil field southeast of Bubiyan Island, which, as it were, “closes” the sea approaches to the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr. Part of the air defense system was also located on two small islands south of Bubiyan - Karu and Umm al-Maradim.

Iraqis captured these islands at the very beginning of their invasion of Kuwait. In addition to the fact that Iraqi intelligence posts and air defense positions were located on islands and oil production platforms, the channels between the Arabian Peninsula and Bubiyan Island were used by the Iraqi fleet for relatively safe and secretive movement of their ships. The Iraqi command planned that at the end of January 1991 of the year, tactical amphibious assault forces from the ducts to the rear of the coalition forces defending Ras Khavji would contribute to a successful ground attack on this city. Several medium landing ships and high-speed boats were ready to carry out landing operations. Their cover, in addition to air defense systems on platforms and islands, was carried out by Soviet-built missile and torpedo boats, minesweepers and German high-speed patrol boats that the Iraqis armed with Exoset missiles.

For additional protection of their fleet, on the shore of the Iraqis, launchers of SilkWorm Chinese anti-ship missiles were deployed, with well-prepared calculations. According to the Iraqi military, coalition ships could not do much harm to coastal defense without entering the missile strike zone.

In order for the plans of the Allies to land in Iraq to be realized, and the plans of the Iraqis to land near Ras Khawji and to keep coalition forces away from the Iraqi shore, remained only plans, it was necessary to destroy all these forces.

Further actions in a sense are “model” for us. Should the Navy fight somewhere far away from its native coast, such decisions will be the only ones that are available to us because of our technical equipment. Of course, only if the type of helicopters and their performance characteristics are brought to the required level, and the pilots, technicians, crews of ships and staffs are properly trained.

On 18 of January 1991, coalition forces began launching massive bombing attacks on Iraq. Immediately “spoke” air defense systems installed by Iraqis on two oil platforms and islands. They did not succeed in knocking anyone down, but it completely worked out and the problem had to be solved as quickly as possible.

On the same day, the OH-58D Kaiowa Warrior US Army reconnaissance and forward guidance helicopter flew to the Oliver Perry class Nicholas (USS FFG-47 “Nicholas”) frigate, where it was ready for a combat mission against the coastal target SH -60B. At night, Nicholas approached the oil platforms at a distance allowing artillery fire. Both helicopters were lifted into the air. The Kiowa provided guidance and used two ATGMs, and the Sea Hock carrier launched several accurate strikes on the platforms with guided missiles. Several hits led to explosions of ammunition on the platforms and the flight of Iraqi soldiers in a rubber boat.


Nicholas (FFG47 USS "Nicholas") Oliver Perry class frigate


Nicholas, meanwhile, approached the platforms even closer, maintaining complete radio silence and opened artillery fire on the Iraqis already "softened" by attack from helicopters. While the frigate was firing, helicopters with Navy SEALs on board, which soon landed on platforms, took off from several other ships. After several hours of gunfire, followed by shelling from the frigate, the Iraqis surrendered.

Next came the turn of the smallest island of Iraq captured - Karu.

During the combat mission of the A-6 Intruder carrier-based attack aircraft, the latter managed to sink an Iraqi mine-layer, minesweeper and patrol boat near the island. Another minesweeper in the course of this attack was able to evade the attack aircraft, but “flew” into the Iraqi minefield and was blown up.


OH-58D "The Kiowa Warrier." Used for percussion tasks along with Sea Hawks


Soon, helicopters were lifted into the air to lift the survivors from the American frigate “Kurtz” (USS “Curts”) out of the water, but they were fired from the island and they could not get anyone out of the water. The Kurtz then began shelling the coast from its 76 graph paper, while maneuvering in such a way that getting it back with fire from the island was as difficult as possible. While this continued, a helicopter with another group of Navy SEALs was lifted from another ship, the Lefthvich destroyer of the Spruance class, which, as was the case with the platforms, was landed under cover of artillery fire from the frigate. Soon, the Iraqis surrendered on this island.

The third island - Umm al-Maradim, was captured by the Marines, who were on the ships of the landing force going to Iraq.

Realizing that tactically the Iraqi forces could not resist the combined attacks of special forces and naval artillery, the Iraqis made an attempt to save their ships. Iraqi fleet leaked to Umm Qasr. Later, the Iraqis planned to flee to Iran, while the KFOR had to set up new minefields to protect the fleeing and then leave behind them.

On the night of 28 on January 29, the A-6 Intruder carrier-based attack aircraft and the E-2С Hokai airborne aircraft detected the passage of many small targets northwest of Bubiyan along the southern edge of the marshes in the Shatt al-Arab Delta. Goals moved towards Iran. Subsequently, aviation identified them as Iraqi patrol boats. In reality, these boats were indeed there, but not only they - the entire Iraqi fleet escaped to Iran.

The commander of the “surface combat operations” of the coalition forces deployed a force of forces against the Iraqis, which mainly consisted of Westland Link helicopters.

With some external fragility, this is a very serious fighting vehicle. It was Link, even if it was equipped, that was the first serial helicopter in the world whose speed exceeded 400 km / h. He was one of the first to complete the “dead loop”.


Photos from those times. Rocket launch of Sea Skia from the helicopter Link


It was Link that became the first combat helicopter in the world to use anti-ship missiles against a surface ship - on 3 on May 1982, such a helicopter damaged a Argentinean patrol ship Alferez Sobral, hit by a Sea Skew missile.

For hunting the Iraqi fleet, helicopters armed themselves with the same anti-ship missiles. Thus began one of the most famous naval events of the Gulf War - the Battle of Bubiyan, also sometimes called the "Hunting of Turkeys under the Bubiyan." For 13 hours, British helicopters took off from ships, carrying anti-ship missiles on pylons.

Using guidance from airplanes and American aircraft R-3С "Orion" and helicopters SH-60В, the British went to the right line of launch and used their anti-ship missiles against Iraqi ships. During the 13-hour operation, they delivered an 21 strike on the Iraqi fleet. These helicopter attacks damaged the impossibility of reconstructing 14 Iraqi ships of various types: 3 minesweeper, 2 minzag, 3 speed boats armed with Exoset missiles, 2 Soviet-built patrol boats, 2 KFOR, 2 rescue ships. Canadian CF-18 fighter bombers also contributed, which also damaged (and actually destroyed) several missile boats.

At the end of the battle, only a couple of Iraqi ships reached Iran - one KFOR and one missile boat. Iraqi Navy ceased to exist. And the main role in their destruction was played by helicopters.

In general, helicopters proved to be the main force in the war at sea in the Persian Gulf. The commander of the “surface combat operations” usually could count 2-5 British Helicopters during the day, the main task of which was missile attacks on surface targets, from 10 to 23 American SH-60B which were mainly used for reconnaissance, and as a secondary missiles were aimed at guided missiles at surface targets and offshore platforms, as well as army OH-58D in the amount of 4 units that were used for night attacks of coastal targets (mainly on islands) and platforms.

Despite the fact that these helicopters belonged to the US Army, they, thanks to the folding rotor blades (like all army helicopters in the USA), were based on URO ships, like the rest of the helicopters. URO ships, besides being carried by helicopters, were themselves used in military operations.

After the rout at Bubiyan, helicopter operations from URO ships continued. Throughout February, the Kiowa and SiHoki carried out combat sorties from ships for reconnaissance and attack of the identified coastal anti-ship missile launchers. Once, the SH-60B was able to give target designation for the use of anti-ship missiles to a Kuwaiti boat that successfully destroyed an Iraqi ship. The English Link helicopters also continued their sorties. Only on February 8 of 1991 of the year were five Iraqi boats attacked and damaged or destroyed.

By the end of February, the Iraqi Navy was completely destroyed. The total number of ships, ships, boats and boats that were hit by coalition Navy reached 143 units. A significant share in these losses was inflicted on the Iraqis by helicopters launched to URO ships, and they also caused the highest instantaneous losses.

Comparing the forces and means that the Allies used in the naval war in the Persian Gulf in the 1991 year, we can say that the tasks of the same scale to destroy surface forces and stationary objects of the Russian Navy would be easily fulfilled even in its current state. Subject to the availability of competent command, and helicopters, modernized as described above.

Helicopters against the shore. Libya


The 2011 Libyan War of the year, during which NATO crushed and brought down this once prosperous state into chaos and savagery, also became a landmark for combat helicopters. The NATO military helicopters deployed at sea on landing ships made a certain contribution to the defeat of the Libyan government forces. France deployed an 4 Tiger helicopter to the Tonner DVKD (Mistral class), from which they made regular sorties.

In the same way, the United Kingdom deployed five Apaches on the landing helicopter carrier Ocean. All sources note the modest contribution of helicopters to this war, if we give them an estimate of the size of the damage done to the enemy.


One Apache took off, the couple is getting ready for a combat flight against Libya from the helicopter carrier of the Naval Forces of Great Britain Ocean, 2011


.
And this is the French "Tiger" - also against Libya


Sources, however, are cunning.

The fact is that one of the objectives of attack helicopters in Libya was to support "their" special forces. While the whole world watched the staged popular uprising in Tripoli by Al-Jazeera, in the real Tripoli and around there were short-lived, but fierce battles between the defenders of Libyan statehood and NATO special forces. And the support of attack helicopters was important for the NATO “specialists”. In addition, statistics do not take into account attacks on dispersed infantry, on enemy units conducting battle, taking into account only the number of sorties against such targets, but without saying much about the damage done.

Evidence that the actions of helicopters in Libya were successful is that after this war, interest in coastal strikes from attack helicopters based on ships increased sharply.

Moreover, unlike the battles in the Persian Gulf in 1991, in Libya, NATO organizedly used specialized helicopters with army pilots against the “coast”. They were based on special landing ships, but on the scale in which they were used there, they could also fly from URO ships, which means that we also have the right to consider such operations as some model for study.

Little future


Britain intends to integrate Link16, an American system of mutual exchange of information, in its army helicopters, and increase the frequency of Apache army exercises from aircraft carriers. Even before the invasion of Libya, the British tried to conduct exercises to destroy high-speed boats, going in a massive attack against a British surface ship. It turned out that Apache was extremely successful in carrying out such a task, now Britain is intensifying interactions between the fleet and army helicopters.


Like this. They will do it in a few years.


France does not lag behind either, which also quite successfully used its Tigers in Libya.

The participants in the operation are closely watched by Australia. The Australians have already begun training flights of military attack helicopters from the UDC supplied by Spain. It is to be expected that the range of their application will be wider and wider.

Currently, in the combat use of army helicopters from ships, there are tendencies to more and more increase the share of combat helicopters in performing the entire volume of strike missions along the coast. Also the trend is the use of more and more advanced missile weapons, as well as the integration of UAVs and helicopters into a single strike complex.

And do not underestimate its capabilities.

As for the use of helicopters against surface combat ships, with the exception of Russia, this has become standard practice even for not very large and strong navies, not to mention developed fleets.


Brazilian Sea King with Exozet RCC. Brazilians understand everything perfectly and do it right


The Royal Navy of Great Britain, for example, received a significantly improved version of the Link helicopter - Wildcat, a very dangerous attack sea helicopter, which also has a perfect search and sighting radar, and an optical-electronic sighting system with a thermal imaging channel that can carry and use as small-sized multipurpose rockets with LMM Martlet with combined laser and infrared guidance, and Sea Venom anti-ship missiles, replacing Sea Skew.




Wildcat Continues Linkx Traditions


The British, therefore, do not forget about their combat experience and continue to develop specialized anti-ship helicopters.

They are not alone. Many countries are developing the capabilities of their marine and anti-submarine helicopters to attack surface targets with missiles. We cannot be left behind.

Helicopters versus airplanes


Separately, it is worth dwelling on the issue of air defense of a ship’s formation and the role of helicopters in it. About AWACS helicopters have already been said, but it does not come down to them, and that's why.

Until now, the detection and classification of a helicopter hovering above the ground remains a huge problem for any radar. Over water, this effect is even stronger and makes it impossible to detect such a target in advance.

The reason is simple - the oscillating surface of the sea gives such a chaotic signal “in response” that the fighter radar cannot distinguish any stationary radio-reflecting object in the chaos of interference. A helicopter hovering above water at low altitude is naturally invisible for a while, until the fighter plane gets too close to it. And then, the fighter will be able to detect a helicopter by the reflected signal from its rotating blades. The speed of movement of the helicopter blade at each moment of time is large enough to cause a “Doppler shift” and the radar signal reflected from the blades comes back at a different frequency than the one reflected from the waves.

The trouble with the fighter is that a helicopter equipped with a modern radar will detect it much earlier. And this cannot be overcome.

At present, there is no aircraft radar in the world that would be located on a small fighter plane and would be able to detect a helicopter hovering above the water at low altitude from at least 45-50 kilometers.

And it is not clear how it can be created, in any case, not one of the radar manufacturers in the world has come close to solving the issue. At the same time, the detection of aircraft at the same and long ranges is not a problem for most radars, even outdated ones, and many of them can be used in helicopters too. For example, the one that was originally planned for Ka-52K.

In fact, under these conditions, it becomes possible to create an air defense barrier remote from the ship’s group based on helicopters. The combination of a full-fledged AWACS helicopter and combat helicopters carrying air-to-air missiles will allow relatively safe attack on enemy aircraft going to the KMG, and the helicopters will be guaranteed to launch the missiles first, and then the maneuverable machine equipped with defense complexes against missiles with IR or RL- guidance, it will be able to evade a missile launched. And if the combat helicopters themselves are equipped with full-fledged radar (which must be done), then they will do without the data of the AWACS helicopter, just a warning that the enemy is “on the way” will be enough, and they are guaranteed to catch him in a “missile ambush” - put in a situation where a drummer loaded with rockets and hanging tanks suddenly a swarm of missiles will fall from the "shadow".

Naturally, this requires armament of helicopters and air-to-air missiles. I must say that in the West they are actively engaged in this. For example, Eurocopter AS 565 also carries Air-to-Air missiles, and the Americans have long been equipping Marine Cobras with Sidewinder missiles.


RCC launch AS-12 with Eurocopter AS 565. It is also equipped with air-to-air missiles



Air-to-air missiles "Sidewinder" on the AN-1Z "Venom" helicopter


In comparison with advanced countries, we behave as always: we have good helicopters, we have good missiles, we have experience in using P-60 air-to-air missiles from helicopters, we have experience in including Mi-24 helicopters in the country's air defense system, and even according to a number of rumors, the only helicopter victory over a jet fighter in aerial combat was achieved on the Mi-24. But we can’t connect everything together. Full-fledged radar separately, Ka-52K separately, air-to-air missiles separately. And so everywhere and in everything. Just some kind of tragedy ...

Of course, it may turn out that launching missiles from the hovering mode upwards will prove to be difficult. But this problem is being solved - we are not the first and not the last, the creation of a two-stage rocket with an accelerator based on an air-to-air missile is not Bean Newton, and this has already been done in the world. There is no reason why Russia could not repeat this. Technical, at least, definitely not.

It is also clear that multi-purpose helicopters for the Navy should be able to use air-to-air missiles. After all, as was previously said, the ability to take Katrana with you on a military campaign will not always be.

One can only hope that common sense will prevail. Given the virtual absence of its carrier fleet and the absence of at least large landing ships such as the Mistral, betting on helicopters is uncontested, as it is uncontested, and there are no others based on URO ships; patrol and landing can only be used in conditions where no one will have to come off, and guaranteed. Nobody promised us such a naval war and does not promise.

So, first you have to learn to act at the same level at which the West acted in its naval wars, and then surpass it.

Technically, we have everything for this, and the question is exclusively in desire.

However, we always have everything, and not just helicopters, rests against this.
  • Alexander Timokhin
  • Henry Jones, Globalsecurity.org, The Telegraph, militarynews.co.uk, fine art America, Alexey Mikheev from Rise, Magazine No. 7 / 2005, Air Recognition, Kamov OJSC, Aviation and Time No. 1 / 2011 , Wikipedia Commons, MBDA, https://www.maritimequest.com, seaforces.org, Lockheed Martin, ammokor.ucoz.ru, airwar.ru,
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

173 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    18 August 2019 05: 47
    Alexander hi your article is good! But, only one thing - we don't have aircraft carriers from the word at all, because "Kuznetsov" is actually a cruiser capable of carrying aircraft on board, and these are completely different classes of ships.
    1. +14
      18 August 2019 07: 59
      Yes, this is profanity, Kuznetsov is much more an aircraft carrier than the old Invincibles of the British, for example, or than some Shakri Narubet.
      1. 0
        5 December 2019 20: 36
        Kuznetsov’s repair is questionable, after the mediocre loss of PD-70. To ask the Norwegians to build us a new one, perhaps?
      2. 0
        27 October 2020 21: 27
        "Sidewinder" on venoms and supercobras is usually still agm-122 sidearm;)
    2. +1
      18 August 2019 22: 36
      You are right, always wrote TAKR. At that time, the Politburo was contorted by the word aircraft carrier.
    3. -1
      19 August 2019 15: 42
      Quote: Thrifty
      because "Kuznetsov" is actually a cruiser capable of carrying aviation

      The first four pr. 1143 were cruisers capable of carrying aircraft on board. Yes, they did - the main armament was the long-range anti-ship missiles / SLCMs and air defense missile systems mast defense planes.
      But at the fifth pr. 1143, the range of the aircraft covered the range of the RCC / KR, and the combat load of the air group was much higher than that of the first four with their air-craft. In addition, the air defense system on it remained only for self-defense. So 1143.5 is an aircraft carrier with strong anti-aircraft defense, armed with cruise / anti-ship missiles.
    4. +2
      17 September 2019 18: 06
      "We have no aircraft carriers from the word at all, because" Kuznetsov "" - and "Kuznetsov" is difficult to call a cruiser, it looks more like scrap metal.
  2. -9
    18 August 2019 05: 51
    E. Damantsev's articles are at least short.
    1. +5
      18 August 2019 12: 58
      Quote: Amateur
      E. Damantsev's articles are at least short.

      hi
      Do you rate articles by word count?
  3. +7
    18 August 2019 06: 42
    Thank you, very informative. But even so it was clear that our fleet was very old and backward, and there were no carrier aircraft as there were, there was a complete lag.
    1. +4
      18 August 2019 17: 19
      Quote: tihonmarine
      Thank you, very informative. But even so it was clear that our fleet was very old and backward, and there were no carrier aircraft as there were, there was a complete lag.

      And ........?
      There are two options! First, at least do something! Than I am pleased with the Author of the article today !!!
      The second is either to tear the hair on your head or to gundos “it wasn’t, but it got worse” ...... I don’t know about you, I like the first option.
  4. -1
    18 August 2019 07: 02
    Interesting article, thanks!
    1. +2
      18 August 2019 07: 57
      Please glad you liked it.
  5. +3
    18 August 2019 07: 41
    From the text of the article:
    It was Link, even if it was equipped, that was the first serial helicopter in the world, the speed of which exceeded 400 km / h.
    To achieve a record speed of 400,87 km / h, it was necessary to create only one single copy of the G-LYNX, very different from the production Westland Lynx.
    The helicopter received a new, more powerful 1,200-strong Rolls-Royce Gem 60 engine, and a more powerful transmission. To increase engine power, a water-methanol injection was installed. Lynx also received a low-lying tail boom with two vertical stabilizers similar to the Westland WG-30. This reduced the load on the tail rotor and increased stability at high speeds. The newly developed composite rotor blades of the British Experimental Rotor Program (BERP) were also installed. BERP blades had wingtips allowing the helicopter to fly at high speeds.
    Source: https://igor113.livejournal.com/903176.html
    1. +2
      18 August 2019 07: 51
      Nevertheless, this is a modification of the base model, no more.
  6. +1
    18 August 2019 07: 52
    In the first photo, the SH-60 is never even similar. Why mislead people?
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 10: 30
      Wrong, this is Wildcat. I will correct it.
  7. +2
    18 August 2019 08: 04
    "Deck-based helicopters have become the eyes, ears and teeth of warships."
    "Military Technology" magazine.
  8. +2
    18 August 2019 08: 37
    In general, as always, Russia somewhere else can provide quality, but with quantity, difficulties arise.
  9. +2
    18 August 2019 08: 49
    Question to the author, but where did you get the idea that Katran planned with the Beetle? As far as I know, Fozotron only announced the possibility of adaptation of the Beetle to Katran. But neither about the end, nor about even the beginning of work on this topic, I could not find information.
    Moreover, the fate of the Zhuk A radar itself depends on a completely different project, and it has the MiG-35, which is the main carrier of the station. A military aircraft will not be ordered with her, there will be no full-fledged radar in the series, which means there will be nothing to simplify.

    But for Kamov’s helicopters of previous versions there is such a consideration: no one will do anything with them. Even in the conditions of the USSR, developers were not interested in tinkering with small-scale naval equipment. And now even more so. Offshore helicopters - piece goods, you can’t make a budget for them, some experimental option is still realistic, but the series is either expensive or unprofitable. This is exactly what prompted Kamovites to the 28/50 contest.

    So, in my opinion, it is realistic to talk only about the unification of the fleet of attack and anti-submarine helicopters of the Navy based on Katran. Perhaps something else will grow together with the small Ka-226. But it is not realistic to hope for the development of the Ka-27 and Ka-29. Just think of 27 Ka-29s and 63 Ka-27s of all modifications. No production perspective. Who will mess with such a small number? We started the project "M" and it stalled. Moreover, the motors are Ukrainian.
    1. +2
      18 August 2019 10: 51
      and where did you get that Katran planned with the Beetle? As far as I know, Fozotron only announced the possibility of adaptation of the Beetle to Katran. But neither about the end, nor about even the beginning of work on this topic, I could not find information.


      It was proposed to put it on these helicopters and on the part of individuals in the Navy this idea had support, but in the end they decided not to include a new radar in the TTZ for the sake of saving money. I'm talking about it.

      Moreover, the fate of the Zhuk A radar itself depends on a completely different project, and it has the MiG-35, which is the main carrier of the station. Do not order a military plane with her


      Order, do not hesitate.

      Offshore helicopters - piece goods, you can’t make a budget for them, some experimental option is still realistic, but the series is either expensive or not profitable.


      Well let it be an expensive series. We have crazy money falling into all kinds of nonsense, let it be better to make a normal and really needed helicopter for crazy money.
      1. +2
        19 August 2019 08: 02
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Order, do not hesitate.

        Your words yes to God in your ears!
        For some reason I have doubts about this.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well let it be an expensive series. We have crazy money falling into all kinds of nonsense, let it be better to make a normal and really needed helicopter for crazy money.


        Even in the USSR this did not work out. The helicopters are not interested in industry and adjacent design bureaus. Too specific and small-scale. Well, for example, I’ll make a radar for them. And where is it then? And she will require forces and means, how much. Income CB receives only from the final product, deducted from each serial. And if a series of 20 pieces, what is the income from it? This is, after all, not a strategic bomber.
        "Kamov" fought with this as best he could, even tried to make attack helicopters on the basis of naval ones, to put an Assault on them. It did not grow together. And now, I'm afraid it won't grow together. Maybe they will do something on the basis of the Ka-52 ...
    2. +4
      18 August 2019 11: 34
      Marine helicopters - piece goods, you can’t make a budget for them

      So you need to make modifications for search and rescue services, federal services, nature protection services, primarily from marine helicopters.
      1. +1
        18 August 2019 20: 18
        As an option, this is possible on the Ka-32 platform, which is mass-produced.
        1. 0
          18 August 2019 21: 26
          You don’t even have to invent it, just restore serial production (if it is stopped).
          PS Ka-32 was created on the basis of Ka-27, so you just need to bring the twenty-seventh to mind by upgrading avionics and equipment (crew) to teach how to use a winch and how to properly secure people and cargo.
          1. +2
            19 August 2019 08: 19
            Quote: Earthshaker
            You don’t even have to invent it, just restore serial production (if it is stopped).

            And where do you get allies from? The restoration of a series of any Soviet technology is faced with the need to re-create production cooperation. Sometimes it happens that there are no more enterprises and such products are not made in Russia. The experience in restoring the production of ship gas turbines is an example.
            1. -1
              19 August 2019 09: 44
              GTU restored? Strange, I have other information. Changed the supplier, or rather tried ... yes.
              1. 0
                19 August 2019 15: 09
                Quote: NAVI
                GTU restored? Strange, I have other information. Changed the supplier, or rather tried ... yes.

                The supplier of what and to whom? Ship GTU is done on Saturn. Recently, a very detailed situation with her was illuminated by uv. Aristarkh Ludwigovich.
                1. +1
                  19 August 2019 16: 06
                  I am talking about the problems of operating the "Gorshkov", more precisely about the 90th. Well, if everything is good, then I am only glad :-)
            2. +1
              19 August 2019 15: 55
              Quote: abc_alex
              The experience in restoring the production of ship gas turbines is an example.

              Rather, not restoration, but the organization of a full cycle. For usually restore what we previously existed, but was lost by naval means.
              Russia, like the RSFSR, has never had on its territory a full cycle of production of ship gas-turbine engines. Components and part of the systems - yes, it was produced by us, but finally everything was closed to the factory in Nikolaev - he was responsible for the turbocompressor, gearbox, assembly and testing.
              This was the case in the USSR, this continued until 2014 in Russia:
              On the Russian side, NPO Saturn OJSC (responsibility zone - power turbine), NPO Avrora FSUE (GTE, diesel and unit control systems), Kolomensky Zavod OJSC (diesel engine) participate in the cooperation on the creation of the unit. on the part of Ukraine - GP NPKG "Zorya - Mashproekt" (turbocharger and gearbox). The tests are carried out on the basis of the Ukrainian state enterprise RPC "Zorya-Mashproekt", since there is no bench base for testing offshore gas turbine units in Russia yet.

              In 2014 (and according to some data earlier), it was decided to organize a full production cycle in the Russian Federation. In 2017, they passed the test bench, in 2018 they tested the first domestic shipboard gas turbine engine.
        2. +2
          19 August 2019 08: 13
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          As an option, this is possible on the Ka-32 platform, which is mass-produced.


          Motors! Ukrainian motors. It is still possible for a citizen to get, but for military vehicles they won’t sell for sure.
          Wait for your VK-2500 in a large series and remotorize the platform. I am not a helicopter designer, but for some reason it seems to me that the Ka-32 remotorization, and its subsequent modification to the needs of the fleet, is not the easiest way.
          1. +1
            19 August 2019 08: 31
            There are difficulties with the engines, but is this not a reason to sit back? Soon it will be necessary to raise the question with an edge, either there are ship helicopters in the Navy, or there are none.
          2. 0
            19 August 2019 09: 42
            Yes they sell everything :-)
            He drove cadets to Mirgorod. Su-27. I asked the deputy armament about the resource. He said they get spare parts from Russia, through the warehouse manager-merchandiser .... only more expensive than before.
            1. 0
              19 August 2019 19: 12
              Well, I know how this is done and it is impossible to provide new helicopters with engines using such methods.
          3. 0
            19 August 2019 16: 04
            Quote: abc_alex
            Motors! Ukrainian motors. It is still possible for a citizen to get, but for military vehicles they won’t sell for sure.

            And as soon as the domestic helicopter industry has survived since 2014 - after all, the production of helicopters stubbornly does not fight with the release of VK-2500. smile

            It is true that Klimovtsy with the Shuvalov plant were a little late. However, say thank you to Boguslaev - he didn’t say either yes or no for the organization of production in Russia for so long that ours until the very last believed that a little more would be squeezed. It’s good that the decision to build his plant was made in 2010, and not in 2014. smile

            However, we must pay tribute to Boguslaev - in contrast to frigates 11356 and 22350, our helicopters after the Maidan did not experience a shortage of engines, despite the fact that in 2014, Klimovites released only 10 domestic engines, and in 2015 - only 30.
      2. 0
        19 August 2019 08: 07
        Quote: Earthshaker
        So you need to make modifications for search and rescue services, federal services, nature protection services, primarily from marine helicopters.


        A sane approach. Only the services you listed are not that rich. The Ka-226 is much more budgetary than the Ka-29, and even that "civilian" did not pull. And again, this is the case: do ecologists need a marine helicopter? It will be a fierce price in a naval fashion ...
        1. 0
          19 August 2019 08: 13
          "in the first place" leaves me room for maneuver. It is better to extinguish fires with a ka-32 than with a 229, planting a federal group too. It all depends on the tasks we solve.
          1. 0
            19 August 2019 08: 31
            Quote: Earthshaker
            It is better to extinguish fires with the ka-32 than with the 229, to land a group of federal ones too.

            The Ka-32 has Ukrainian engines.
            1. +1
              19 August 2019 09: 40
              They do it in Russia. Not much truth. TV-3-117 and others. Sich released the lion's share.
              Well this is on Milevsky cars.
              1. 0
                19 August 2019 15: 11
                Quote: NAVI
                Well this is on Milevsky cars.

                According to Kamovsky the same. In Zaporozhye was the largest serial plant in the USSR. Development could be anything, but the series drove there.
            2. 0
              19 August 2019 19: 13
              Reverse engineering and localization. Three to four years can be managed.
              1. 0
                21 August 2019 08: 37
                Managed, VK-2500. But while barely enough for the current program on the Mi-28, and Ka-52. I have not heard anything about plans for remotorization of the Ka-32.
                But then again, what about the radar? And the weapons complex? Is it possible to unify with the Ka-52? For the sake of 10 cars for 6 ships this will not be done. Isn’t it easier to create an anti-ship and anti-submarine version of Katran?
                1. 0
                  21 August 2019 11: 47
                  For the sake of 10 vehicles for 6 ships, this will not be done.


                  You write a little. Even now there are more carriers, and there are still tasks for working from the shore and exporting. How many Ka-28 (export Ka-27) are there in India? Do you have your own?

                  Isn’t it easier to create an anti-ship and anti-submarine version of Katran?


                  Easier, but it’s not right. The ship's helicopter also has search and rescue and transport functions.
                  1. 0
                    21 August 2019 12: 08
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    How many Ka-28s are there in India (export Ka-27)?

                    I don’t know, sorry.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Do you have your own?

                    It seems yes, there is


                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Easier, but it’s not right. The ship's helicopter also has search and rescue and transport functions.


                    But they do not fit in the same machine. Ka-27PS and submarines are different machines on the same base. After all, it was impossible to look for boats from the PS? Therefore, either one or another version was based on the ships either together, but one at a time.
                    They are made for large of the Soviet fleet. Now, in my opinion, such a vehicle, a special naval one, will not be made. Therefore, in my opinion, it is more realistic to wait for two vehicles from adjacent "branches", a combat vehicle based on Katran and a squeak-rescue vehicle on a base that I do not yet understand.
                    1. 0
                      21 August 2019 12: 21
                      But they do not fit in the same machine. Ka-27PS and submarines are different machines on the same base. After all, it was impossible to look for boats from the PS?


                      but with a submarine you can raise a person from the water. And you can arm it with RCC. But the Ka-52 will not transport either the wounded or the spare part.

                      They are created for the large Soviet fleet. Now, in my opinion, such a machine, a special naval one, will not be made.


                      They are already doing it - Lamprey. But it will be sometime. And "for now" they scored.
                      1. 0
                        21 August 2019 15: 03
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        but with a submarine you can raise a person from the water. And you can arm it with RCC.

                        Well, when "Kamov" tried to arm the Ka-29 with Sturm, he was gently refused. I'm not saying that it is impossible. I doubt anyone will take it.
                        Fazotron simply won and refused to make a radar for the Mi-28. :)

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        They are already doing it - Lamprey. But it will be sometime. And "for now" they scored.

                        It remains only to regret. In general, the fleet somehow messed up too much in the 90s and 2000s. And the mass retirement of ships and the orientation on foreign engines and the lack of thought in the shipbuilding program, everything is connected now and has made a lot of problems. It seems that everything is for the restoration of the fleet, but as it comes to the matter, it turns out that he is not particularly interested in anyone ...
                      2. +1
                        21 August 2019 19: 53
                        In general, the fleet somehow messed up too much in 90 and 2000. And the mass retirement of ships and the orientation on foreign engines and the lack of thought in the shipbuilding program, everything is connected now and has made a lot of problems.


                        They continue to mow. And hard.

                        It seems that everything is for the restoration of the fleet, but as it comes to the matter, it turns out that he is not particularly interested in anyone ...


                        Rather, no one understands what to do with it and from what end to start.
                      3. 0
                        9 July 2021 01: 51
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        In general, the fleet somehow messed up too much in the 90s and 2000s. And the massive decommissioning of ships and the focus on foreign engines and the ill-conceived shipbuilding program, everything came together now and made a bunch of problems. It seems that everyone is for the restoration of the fleet, but when it comes down to it, it turns out that nobody is particularly interested in it ...

                        So our General Staff of the Navy and before that produced jambs. There are inland waterways with their restrictions on the Navy, and the development of reserve military-civilian and military ports, and the development of the civilian part of the naval base, and the development (transfer) of shipyards, and financial and organizational staff shoals for planning the construction of ships, yes damn it, they are even a simple stopper for LA managed to do it through the ass and for a lot of money. In general, according to indirect data, as Stalin and Beria died, a mess began, which reached its peak in the 80s. So all subsequent shoals are something like an echo or secondary damped earthquakes.
  10. 0
    18 August 2019 09: 27
    If the helicopter lands on the water and turns off the engine, then it turns out that the plane will not notice it at all?
    1. 0
      18 August 2019 11: 05
      In Doppler mode, the radar detection range is highly dependent on speed, so the detection range in their front hemisphere is much longer than in the rear
      For example, for radar N001 Su-27
      . The detection range of a fighter type target in the front hemisphere (heading course) is 80-100 km, and in the back hemisphere (catch-up course) 30-40 km.
      1. 0
        18 August 2019 20: 19
        In Doppler mode, the radar detection range is highly dependent on speed


        And not only from the speed of the radar carrier, but also from the speed of the target - this is the joke with helicopters.
        1. +1
          19 August 2019 09: 35
          There was such a chip back in the 60s, radial movement relative to the attacking fighter. I was somehow planted by manuals to remake on the Tu-16. Shooting a series of PRLS from a gun, a sharp decline, and more. But it seems to me even then it did not work very well.
          There will be time to climb the dock, dir SDTs, BALL .... I read a year P-18 and PRLS-6m2. Well, I was sitting behind the screens in Melitopol, it was interesting. Normally they see DRL and the plane and the helicopter. Hanging or not. And the airplane station normally sees both bridges and corners at the training ground.
          1. 0
            19 August 2019 17: 00
            counted a year old P-18 and PRLS-6m2. Well, I was sitting behind the screens in Melitopol, it was interesting. Normally see DRL and the plane and the helicopter


            These are stationary radars.
            1. +1
              19 August 2019 18: 51
              What about airplanes? Raise the antenna to zero and normally see the mark from the side next to it, flying with you at the same speed flying project. Or objects on earth, factories, bridges are very luminous.
              A radar cannot fail to detect a hovering helicopter, especially against the background of the sea.
              The question is its reflection area. Can a hovering helicopter of its radar detect a hovering helicopter too? :-)
              In my opinion this is a bike. How about a cow on the Tu-22 m3. Whoever saw hatches, even if the cow does the splits as Volochkova does, will not reach the edges with her hooves. I didn’t measure, but I guess :-)
              1. 0
                19 August 2019 19: 14
                Well, honest radar manufacturers make this point themselves, I didn’t come up with it myself. And, once again, it detects, but from a short distance.
                1. 0
                  19 August 2019 20: 29
                    Well, I am always inclined that Doppler here has less influence on the range than the image intensifier of the helicopter itself. For the mood. I wrote the statements of state officials from the deputy for armament and from the battalion commander. OBS RTO. Lieutenant Colonel, already retired. He brought the package and signed it. Complains, how many cadets he asked to explain ef Add. dull :-) I told him, and explain to me yourself. He tried for ten minutes, got confused himself ... spat. Then he says, I myself cannot understand this garbage from the school, as well as electric current.  
              2. 0
                20 August 2019 00: 30
                Quote: NAVI
                A radar cannot fail to detect a hovering helicopter, especially against the background of the sea.

                The water surface is rarely calm. Masking reflections.
                1. +1
                  20 August 2019 06: 52
                  :-)
                  On the radar panel of the second Il-38 navigator there are many "things", such as gain, brightness, highlight, scale, attenuation, antenna tilt, etc.
                  All were found at will and experience.
                  By the way, if the excitement is even better. When searching for malorasm goals.
                  Yes, you can also "play" with the height and the speed of the aircraft.
                  1. 0
                    20 August 2019 06: 54
                    If you wish, look through the photo
                    http://samlib.ru/comment/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/photo-1
                    There, find the IL-38 and a photo of the panel of the second navigator from my workbook, in my 1979.
                    1. 0
                      20 August 2019 23: 00
                      Quote: NAVI
                      second navigator

                      So familiar with the specifics.
                      1. 0
                        21 August 2019 14: 39
                        But is it not Kravchenko who moved the radar detection of underwater objects?
                      2. 0
                        21 August 2019 19: 49
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        But is it not Kravchenko

                        Well, at least this surname, initials and degree meet when you touch on this topic. True, there is also Kravchenko A.S. - Doctor of Technical Sciences, Captain 1 rank. Submarine detection is not a very public topic, or rather very non-public, so we will find out exactly who worked on what much later ...
                      3. 0
                        24 August 2019 21: 08
                        Is he:-):-):-):-)
                        I have this book.
                      4. 0
                        24 August 2019 21: 25
                        Quote: NAVI
                        I have this book.

                        Well then what are we talking about hi drinks .
                  2. 0
                    20 August 2019 22: 59
                    Quote: NAVI
                    All were found at will and experience.

                    Who can argue. Moreover, the Il-38 is just the same aircraft specialized for this business. Here the question is at what distance and for how long ... But yes, all the "invisible" can be seen.
  11. 0
    18 August 2019 09: 50
    Have you thought about how much the hovering helicopter sags in one place? In the middle of the ocean? And how does he get to the hover point?
    By the way, in the described situation "the helicopter will detect the plane much earlier" even if it does not have any radar at all. Only the helicopter will be unable to do anything with this knowledge, because the plane will shoot it down long before entering the launch zone of helicopter missile launchers of self-defense explosives
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 10: 53
      Have you thought about how much the hovering helicopter sags in one place? In the middle of the ocean? And how does he get to the hover point?


      You are probably waiting with irony for an answer like "flies from the continent", right? And if you think a little yourself?

      A helicopter will not be able to do anything with this knowledge, because the plane will knock it off long before entering the launch zone of the helicopter UR explosives self-defense


      So there must be other UR explosives.
    2. +3
      18 August 2019 13: 23
      Ka-27pl working with OGAS only and weighs changing the place of listening.
    3. +4
      18 August 2019 15: 04
      Quote: E.S.
      Have you thought about how much the hovering helicopter sags in one place? In the middle of the ocean? And how does he get to the hover point?
      By the way, in the described situation "the helicopter will detect the plane much earlier" even if it does not have any radar at all. Only the helicopter will be unable to do anything with this knowledge, because the plane will shoot it down long before entering the launch zone of helicopter missile launchers of self-defense explosives


      What will prevent four P-77 (RVV-SD) from being suspended under a helicopter? They weigh 175 kg, even if you add an accelerator, then there will be, let 250 kg. Total 1 ton. You can also add 2 / 4 RVV-MD on twin pylons. For Ka-52 combat load:
      - 2000 kg (option with 4 suspension points)
      - 2800 kg (option with 6 suspension points)

      Those. there will be half the combat load. Or 2 PTB + 2 RVV-SD + 2 / 4 RVV-MD
      Shells with controlled detonation on the trajectory must be placed in the cannon, this will sharply increase the likelihood of hitting air targets.

      With a radar with AFAR, such a helicopter can even intercept CR / RCC.
      1. +1
        18 August 2019 20: 20
        That's it, great comment, ahead of me, thanks!
      2. +1
        18 August 2019 22: 30
        For RVV, something else is needed, in addition to the holders and the missiles themselves.
        Everything can be attached, only a helicopter will not take off.
        Normal conquests. Prev in air engaged in fighter jets.
        1. 0
          18 August 2019 23: 05
          Here we are talking about the self-defense of the KUG from a limited air strike.
          1. +1
            19 August 2019 00: 12
            Goal and fiction :-)
            Re-invent their own special way.
            My opinion is that the conditions for firing an air defense ship are much wider than that of a helicopter. If it's a cruiser, two helicopters. One plo second air defense? If it’s a helicopter carrier. Do not be lazy to make at least the likeness of Harrier.
            With limited impact and the ships will cope. And with unlimited nothing will help.
            And it seems to me more important to deal with helicopters badly, and leave the air to those who do this more successfully.
    4. +1
      18 August 2019 22: 33
      Ash peppers recognize. There is a KPUNIA post, they will "call" the helicopter and say, it's time to do legs ... or whatever he has ... :-)
      1. 0
        18 August 2019 23: 06
        Wow, the abbreviation will be new, KPUNVA laughing
        1. +1
          19 August 2019 09: 27
          They were prepared for the Su-15. When I first came to Watchtower, I watch the lieutenants march around with blue enlightenment. And the badges are not visible (cool, pilot, navigator)
          Then they explained. TFR as a remote ship RLD. And then when the MiG-31 arrived, he didn’t specify. Whether they induce them or not.
          1. 0
            19 August 2019 14: 01
            Well, this is your TOF theme, by the way, there and now such ideas are in use, such as launching the KNS with RTOs, and deploying the KPUNSHA on it. (or "And" as it goes).
            1. -1
              19 August 2019 18: 59
              There was already a joke, after Fliteks. When they drove RK pr.205 to the Kuril Islands. The people scattered, the boats were being repaired, the future lump of the EW regiment flew into the teapot in a torn block. Although the questions were about seaworthiness. In 1991, the anniversary of Russian America was celebrated. In Vladik, Peter and Pavel collected copies of the packet boats and came to them in Kamchatka. There is nothing to watch. A big boat. There is video, shot in the area of ​​Kultuchny Lake, on the beach.
              And somehow they didn’t drown :-)
  12. 0
    18 August 2019 09: 54
    Quote: Denimax
    If the helicopter lands on the water and turns off the engine, then it turns out that the plane will not notice it at all?


    Not immediately, but after a while even the rescuers are not a fact that they will quickly notice, on a helicopter float landing gear or on a sea wave - it’s good if the life jacket that comes up is found or
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 22: 26
      Float Chassis. Not long ago.
      Balonets.
      They will not notice anyone if they stupidly wait until they save.
      There is a whole set of tools ......
      I wrote and remembered about the Su-34 ..... got excited with the means (((
  13. +1
    18 August 2019 10: 28
    A very interesting article, with lots of factual information.
    From the comments
    1. As far as I understand, modern Afar radar with a synthesized aperture and a mapping mode helicopters detect.
    2. Now there is a tendency to make composite blades, with less noticeability.
    3. AWACS helicopter has limited use due to the small radius and duration of the flight. However, such helicopters can provide AWACS for example at the time of the landing operation or target designation and additional reconnaissance
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 10: 55
      1. As far as I understand, modern Afar radar with a synthesized aperture and a mapping mode helicopters detect.


      Not sure, to be honest. Can you name the fighter type (important reservation) radar? If only with F-35C ...

      3. AWACS helicopter has a limited use due to the small radius of action and flight time. However, such helicopters can provide AWACS


      Well, here or so, or in any way. I do not try to give out need for virtue.
    2. +1
      18 August 2019 22: 23
      Why is Andrey silent about ZGRLS and the vile word "signature" :-)
  14. 0
    18 August 2019 11: 13
    For us, ship helicopters are not an option because there are no carriers for them.
    In terms of intelligence, the use of drones is much more promising. Yes, and for shock missions, too, seriously, it would be worth thinking about placing swarms of kamikaze drones on ships.
    For drills, planes are easier to use. The opportunities there are much higher, although we do not have AFAR. All alone in our fortresses or somewhere nearby our surface fleet has a chance.
    The main potential of helicopters in the fleet is plo and pmo. That would be worth concentrating on, ground-based helicopters, together with airplanes, could move the adversary’s plane from our bases and conduct trawling.
    1. +3
      18 August 2019 20: 23
      For us, ship helicopters are not an option because there are no carriers for them.


      The media are counted in the article. In fact, we have another problem - we have carriers, but there are no helicopters themselves.

      All alone in our fortresses or somewhere nearby our surface fleet has a chance.


      See Port Arthur. It doesn’t.

      Paradoxically, the weak man has only one survival strategy - to strike first as hard as possible, then attack the enemy continuously in movement wherever the situation allows, and so that he does not crush the masses, make him throw the main forces of the Navy not against the annoying ships, but against the coast.

      The coastal or serf fleet is a myth; it does not work.
      And we are a country fed up on this in a real war.
    2. 0
      18 August 2019 22: 21
      Already. For example, in the 317th regiment in Yelizovo. UAVs appeared.
      Trawling. Limited by weather and training.
      According to the stories of grandfathers, when Suez was cleaned with turntables. It was very difficult and there were victims. Sea trawls more efficiently. And the same ancient Captor how to trawl? By helicopter?
      1. +2
        18 August 2019 23: 09
        The point in trawling from the air is that it quickly undermines defensive mines, leaving only those that are set up to undermine a ship with a specific range of physical fields. These pick out skinny.
        If at first you don’t drive either a helicopter trawl, or a self-propelled, or a breaker through the minefield, then you will have to dig into the minefield for a very long time and with huge losses in the materiel (NPA).
        1. +1
          18 August 2019 23: 42
            You probably mean the classic layered production. From ships. In Avach Bay, during the period of threat, staging is possible only from boats. And the depths acc. Honestly, I did not delve into it. But in 175 OPLVE there were no minesweepers. Their main task was for the CFC. I think that in the presence of four submarine divisions, this would be provided if necessary. And usually the OVR with their minesweepers and icebreakers was carried out to the diving point or to diff. In the war, Ka or Mi with the HCV dipped at the dive point. So it was in the plan.
      2. 0
        19 August 2019 16: 30
        Quote: NAVI
        According to the stories of grandfathers, when Suez was cleaned with turntables. It was very difficult and there were victims.

        It’s difficult, PMSM, because medium-heavy vehicles — Mi-8 and Ka-25 — were taken as the base. The Americans did not trifle - and immediately took the heavy CH-53, which carried a lot more ..
        1. 0
          19 August 2019 19: 02
          Who is the doctor to whom?
          "A knife is good for whoever has it" (c)
  15. +1
    18 August 2019 11: 20
    Thank you so much for the article. Described thoughts that are in the air. The Ka-27 definitely needs to be modernized and, at the same time, a new multipurpose helicopter should be created. It is also desirable to create a UAV that can interact with sea-based helicopters. All the same, we need to start designing the Mistral a la Rus.
  16. -8
    18 August 2019 11: 34
    Currently, there is no aircraft radar in the world that could be located on a small fighter plane and would be able to detect a helicopter hovering above the water at low altitude from at least 45-50 kilometers

    VO turns into "AIDS-Info" request
    1. 0
      18 August 2019 12: 13
      Quote: Operator
      VO turns into "AIDS-Info

      Andryusha (and Co.)! it's you (in the plural laughing ) trying (with your miserable opuses lol ) turn it into "AIDS info"
      1. -6
        18 August 2019 12: 53
        Maxim - here you are not Africa laughing
        1. +1
          18 August 2019 13: 07
          Quote: Operator
          here you are not Africa

          lol
          Andryusha, how was it yesterday? - "vodka to drink the earth to wallow"? laughing
      2. +2
        18 August 2019 22: 14
        Quote: Fizik M
        Quote: Operator
        VO turns into "AIDS-Info

        Andryusha (and Co.)! it's you (in the plural laughing ) trying (with your miserable opuses lol ) turn it into "AIDS info"


        those. have already revealed that. that "Operator" is a group of associates?
        Are they all with an alternate universe?
        Or are there still more reasonable characters among them?
    2. 0
      22 August 2019 01: 19
      Read the article by the head of the "Phazotron-NIIR" department Arkady Forshter "Operating mode of the onboard pulse-Doppler radar for a hovering helicopter" in the journal "Radioelectronic Technologies" No. 3 2015

      There, the detection range with the help of radar of a modernized MiG-2200 fighter flying at an altitude of 2400-29 m with this very regime (a regime using the selection of Doppler reflections of the rotor blades) of a Mi-200 helicopter hovering at an altitude of 400-8 m is indicated - 27 km detection, 25 km taking for escort.

      If you find a fighter radar taking on an escort helicopter hovering on the background of the underlying surface at a distance several times greater, please be kind enough to inform.
      1. 0
        22 August 2019 10: 48
        Why read articles when it is enough to know the characteristic radar feature of a helicopter (no matter whether it hovered or does not hover at a low height above the underlying surface) - a huge area of ​​ESR (of the order of hundreds of square meters, which is larger than the ESR of a strategic bomber) of a helicopter rotor, and even and rotating with a frequency two orders of magnitude higher than the frequency of wave oscillations of the same sea surface.

        "Phazotron-NIIR" needs to stop engaging in literary creativity and tighten its tails in the software of its products.

        PS The refractive indices of the waves of radar radiation for fiberglass blades and for air differ significantly, sufficient for radar discrimination of the screw. Plus, the blades have at least a metal coating of the toe (in order to reduce abrasive wear) and, as a maximum, metal spars, filler honeycombs and electric heater wiring, new blade shell designs include carbon fiber, which reflects radio waves.
        1. 0
          22 August 2019 15: 21
          Quote: Operator
          Why read articles when it is enough to know the characteristic radar feature of a helicopter (no matter whether it hovered or does not hover at a low height above the underlying surface) - a huge area of ​​ESR (of the order of hundreds of square meters, which is larger than the ESR of a strategic bomber) of a helicopter rotor, and even and rotating with a frequency two orders of magnitude higher than the frequency of wave oscillations of the same sea surface.


          You have instinctive knowledge, since you do not need to read?

          The averaged EPR of a helicopter with metal rotor blades (roughly Mi-8) is taken as 75 m2.

          At the same time, metal blades are no longer "in vogue". "When making a helicopter and its blades from composite materials, the RCS values ​​given in Table 1 for the case of blades and hull made of metal, as seen from (4), must be reduced by 7 ... 10 dB." that is, 5-10 times.

          And yes, "The Mi-8 helicopter has five metal blades 10 meters long. Therefore, the directional pattern of the secondary radiation of the blade in the azimuthal plane has a width of the order of fractions of a degree. Taking into account the main rotor rotation frequency of 3-4 Hz ... the signal has a flash character. .. The short duration of the flash forces the use of signals with a high repetition rate. In order for such impulses to be sufficient, their repetition rate should be of the order of 100 kHz ... Since the repetition period of flashes in the Mi-8 helicopter is 50-60 ms, detection has to be carried out one flash at a time, and the position of the flash within the observation interval is not known a priori, which significantly complicated the detection procedure.
          The next difficult problem turned out to be the task of capturing the signal reflected from the hovering helicopter by range .... "

          And so the "Zhuk-M2E" radar station, modified to detect a helicopter hovering against the background of the underlying surface, by radar signals reflected from the rotor blades when a fighter is flying at an altitude of 2200-2400 m, detects a Mi-200 helicopter hovering at an altitude of 400-8 m at a range of ~ 27 km, takes for escort at a distance of ~ 25 km.

          Since you already know everything enough, without the need to read, indicate how far the APG-79 (V) 4 radar is in the same conditions it detects and takes on support, say, an NH90FFH helicopter?

          PS EPR of the Tu-22M3 missile carrier in the X-range strictly on the side ~ 350 m2.
  17. +3
    18 August 2019 12: 22
    article necessary, in many respects correct
    but here under the crap called Ka-27M (radar type "saucer", poor RGAB and OGAS, in fact, the absence of PPS ("Kema" is not close to it), the inability to solve multipurpose tasks) it was worth stomping on the full am
  18. +1
    18 August 2019 15: 05
    Regarding the picture with the caption "Ka-52K" Katran "with the X-35 anti-ship missile system. Not guessed, though from the radar." Who is carrying whom? Helicopter - is a rocket or missile supposed to deliver the helicopter to a given area?
    But seriously, the new marine helicopter must be done with removable containers, since there are many tasks, and you can’t put a lot of helicopters (even if they are enough in principle) onto the ship. Yes, and they are usually needed all at once for one task (solving PLO problems, search and rescue operations, landing operations are rarely performed at the same time). And so did the transport, search and rescue, airborne assault, shock, anti-ship containers, anti-submarine container and anti-submarine, reconnaissance, radio reconnaissance, AWACS, electronic warfare, etc. and hang it on a helicopter if necessary. Cheap containers (transport, search and rescue, air assault, etc.) can be riveted one for each helicopter. Expensive (AWACS, EW, PLO, etc.) can be rearranged from an arriving or broken helicopter to a departing one (unless, of course, the ship allows at least temporary deployment of several helicopters).
    1. 0
      9 July 2021 02: 34
      unfortunately, not everything is so simple, because on such small ships there is no place to store all these modules, here you need at least something like a hybrid of the frigate-destroyer URO and the Singaporean DVKD endurance, in fact the author himself proved my words by giving an example of the Libyan operation where used larger carrier ships
  19. -1
    18 August 2019 16: 38
    Quote: AVM
    Quote: E.S.
    Have you thought about how much the hovering helicopter sags in one place? In the middle of the ocean? And how does he get to the hover point?
    By the way, in the described situation "the helicopter will detect the plane much earlier" even if it does not have any radar at all. Only the helicopter will be unable to do anything with this knowledge, because the plane will shoot it down long before entering the launch zone of helicopter missile launchers of self-defense explosives


    What will prevent four P-77 (RVV-SD) from being suspended under a helicopter? They weigh 175 kg, even if you add an accelerator, then there will be, let 250 kg. Total 1 ton. You can also add 2 / 4 RVV-MD on twin pylons. For Ka-52 combat load:
    - 2000 kg (option with 4 suspension points)
    - 2800 kg (option with 6 suspension points)

    Those. there will be half the combat load. Or 2 PTB + 2 RVV-SD + 2 / 4 RVV-MD
    Shells with controlled detonation on the trajectory must be placed in the cannon, this will sharply increase the likelihood of hitting air targets.

    With a radar with AFAR, such a helicopter can even intercept CR / RCC.


    This is not necessary for a ship's helicopter, it will then fly with one purpose - to protect itself in case of the appearance of a fighter.
    And he must quickly, quickly topple closer to the ship under the cover of his ship’s air defense
  20. -2
    18 August 2019 18: 19
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    1. As far as I understand, modern Afar radar with a synthesized aperture and a mapping mode helicopters detect.


    Not sure, to be honest. Can you name the fighter type (important reservation) radar? If only with F-35C ...

    3. AWACS helicopter has a limited use due to the small radius of action and flight time. However, such helicopters can provide AWACS


    Well, here or so, or in any way. I do not try to give out need for virtue.

    I can! Su-35 with a mapping mode!
    And the F-35 has no mapping mode
  21. 0
    18 August 2019 20: 47
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    For us, ship helicopters are not an option because there are no carriers for them.


    The media are counted in the article. In fact, we have another problem - we have carriers, but there are no helicopters themselves.

    All alone in our fortresses or somewhere nearby our surface fleet has a chance.


    See Port Arthur. It doesn’t.

    Paradoxically, the weak man has only one survival strategy - to strike first as hard as possible, then attack the enemy continuously in movement wherever the situation allows, and so that he does not crush the masses, make him throw the main forces of the Navy not against the annoying ships, but against the coast.

    The coastal or serf fleet is a myth; it does not work.
    And we are a country fed up on this in a real war.


    1) We have very conditional media. Fully servicing helicopters on almost all of them is problematic. At least as with the Japanese, if you build helicopter carriers, then maybe yes. But against aviation with AFAR all one dead issue. The maximum is flat. Katran for coastal defense with PCR can be good, hiding behind the relief, but no more.

    2) Just Arthur worked, he fettered the great land forces of the Japanese for a long time. But from the fleet for which it was built, there was no return at all. The only Japanese ships were sunk by mines. So for this, the fleet was not needed. And in our time, nothing has changed. The main thing now is aviation, as a universal tool, and mobile, which in a matter of hours can be transferred to a decisive direction. And the fleet in our conditions can only be an appendage to ensure combat stability. Without aviation, he could not resist a serious conflict. And the fleet is nothing without the provision of normal basing - and this is PMO and flat. From simple it is necessary to go to complex.
  22. +2
    18 August 2019 21: 24
      Alexander good evening. I slightly disagree with the non-detection of helicopters hovering on PMV. If it hovers, it is hard to see it, but it is also blind at low altitudes. I do not mention a sharp increase in fuel consumption and a decrease in the radius. There are no "local people" above the sea. The helicopter is frozen, but the plane is flying. Range changes. I'm talking about Doppler. There is no pure radar now. There is a complex. You have forgotten about KOLS. About 30 years ago, the OEPS-29 gave up to 20-25 km. I can tell you more. My friend and classmate graduated from AVVACUL. Su-27 Novaya Zemlya. They took Drozda for heat at 350 km. This is 1985. Of course, SR cannot be compared with a turntable in terms of heat ... but ... And don't forget about the network centric. Well, a helicopter does not arise out of nothing. There is a carrier, radio communications, information exchange, the work of its locator, etc.
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 22: 13
        I will add. And with blades too :-) They are not metal, glued honeycomb. Foil, something like that. Of the metal at the top, there are only parts of the swashplate. So the blades will not "shine" especially. And on RLD. About ten years ago, they were looking for those who still flew to the DC in Kamchatka. They planned to retrain. It turned out, who are retired, and who are in the coffin - the radiation is strong, oncology.
      1. +1
        18 August 2019 23: 28
        It turned out who is retired, and who is strong in the grave, oncology.


        This is a flaw in the specific design; on the same aircraft, the YES radar is not weaker, but from there shells are not massively written off.

        Who were you planning to retrain for?
        1. +1
          19 August 2019 00: 02
          Like 35. Interrogated third navigators from Il. There is a captain category. But no one bought it. It is better to be friends with sailors and their iron at a distance, or at a table :-)
    2. +1
      18 August 2019 23: 26
      If it freezes, it is hard to see, but it is blind at low altitudes.


      There is VZOI, there is an AWACS helicopter, ship radars, if it is included in the grid, then it will see with someone else's "eyes".

      The helicopter crashes, but the plane is flying. Range changes. I'm talking about Doppler.


      Yes, but in almost all radar in the world, the notch of the Doppler shift from the blades begins at the most with 40 km. It really is, but on average 25-30. Further, a helicopter hovering above the water cannot be detected. Almost no one.

      Before writing the article, I skimmed through a dozen Western articles, by the way, there are surprisingly many of them on the internet, you drive in something like "problem of hovering helicopter detection" and this drops out ...

      In general, now the situation is as follows - a turntable with a powerful radar with a height of up to 50 meters, should detect a fighter approaching it at 1000-1500 meters somewhere 30-40% further than the fighter will detect a helicopter. It's not much, but it's a chance. And if you shoot on external guidance, then the launch of the UR will occur before the fighter notices the "arrow".

      They took the heat of Drozd under 350 km.


      Now there are almost no ships with such thermal signature. If only the destroyers of the 956 project, but the cruiser. And Kuzya is still alive.

      Here the Britons took a photo of "Gorshkov" against the background of some of their ship


      Almost like a natural background.

      Well, a helicopter does not arise out of nothing. There is a carrier. Radio negotiations, information exchange. The work of its locator, etc.


      All this can be greatly minimized, especially radio communications. Even the exchange of information can be compressed into "packets", as in transmission from the PL. And send it via satellite even over short distances.
      1. +1
        18 August 2019 23: 58
        You can, I'm for :-)
        If included in a grid-exchange, at least in packets. Unmasks.
        In general, it doesn’t matter when he discovers the plane. Target range for helicopter missiles? Does he shoot at ships? Is the ship closer to the helicopter, or a fighter?
        Also a plane helicopter. D his HCV is not coeval with the distant airplanes. That is, it’s 5 km to the target boat, and 50 to the fighter. It’s time to tick, and not engage in search.
        1. 0
          19 August 2019 13: 55
          This can all come about in different ways, according to the situation, the question for the Navy is that it is either without everything at all or with helicopters.
          1. 0
            19 August 2019 19: 07
            Well with a turntable, anyway.
            The question is how to use it.
            And the issue of carrier displacement concerns landing on a deck in a storm.
            If you meet Kama on the network. This is a helicopter pilot, VVVAUSh 1989.
            And on the BOD and Kuz. In my opinion Smyzhuk surname. One of the few who talks a lot about people flying from a ship.
      2. 0
        19 August 2019 11: 59
        Here the Britons took a photo of "Gorshkov" against the background of some of their ship

        It is not clear who is against whom. Who is the ship closest to us? Any Yaroslav the Wise? The second, judging by the add-on, is Gorshkov, and the Briton in the background is that dark spot in the distance?
        1. +1
          19 August 2019 13: 55
          Middle - Britt.
          1. 0
            19 August 2019 17: 58
            Then the photo is rather positive, though you should not forget about the difference in distances.
        2. +1
          22 August 2019 01: 43
          Quote: alexmach
          It’s not clear who is against whom


          The middle one, one of the "Daring" AKA Emins Type 45. In addition to the fact that this failure of the British shipbuilding was very noisy, judging by the photo, it is clearly not all right with the IR signature.
    3. 0
      22 August 2019 01: 35
      The direct radio range of a target flying at an altitude of 60 meters for a helicopter hovering at an altitude of 30 meters is ~ 34 km.



      Quote: NAVI
      You forgot about KOLS. About 30 years ago OEPS-29 issued up to 20-25 km.


      Exaggerated, the IR signature from the turboshaft engines of the helicopter is as much less than the IR signature from the turbojet engines of the fighter, how much the power of the engines of the helicopter is less than the power of the engine (s) of the fighter, i.e. somewhere an order of magnitude.

      Those. and with the help of the onboard KOLS, the helicopter will detect the fighter before the fighter detects the helicopter.
      1. -2
        24 August 2019 09: 14
        The time difference in detections is "eaten up" by the difference in speed. The helicopter sees that they will kill him now, but has no time to do anything.
        But, it seems to me, this reasoning is about nothing.
        The helicopter is the long arm of the BOD. He guides and protects him. And the fighter should be the first to discover the ship, not the PLO helicopter. He has enough of his tasks.
  23. 0
    18 August 2019 21: 46
    Great article, interesting thoughts.
  24. -2
    18 August 2019 22: 44
    And again for an encore:
    There is no mapping mode in the BO radar mode on the F-35,
    not at all, in the sense of no. Despite the presence of AFAR, and to be completely honest, it is thanks to the presence of AFAR that there is no mapping mode,
    But Drying with PFAR has this regime, precisely because PFAR
    And the resolution in this mode is just less than a meter, so that you can see not only the helicopter, but also estimate the type of helicopter
    1. 0
      18 August 2019 23: 12
      But we will not fight with those who have Su-35!
    2. 0
      22 August 2019 01: 54
      Quote: E.S.
      And the resolution in this mode is just less than a meter, so that you can see not only the helicopter, but also estimate the type of helicopter


      For F-35 I will not say, but about the Su-35:

      "Air targets with an image intensifier of 3 m2 on collision courses" Irbis-E "radar can detect at a distance of up to 350-400 km (within the viewing area of ​​100 degrees 2). This is a unique indicator for modern aviation radar stations. In a wider viewing area (300 deg. 2), similar targets are guaranteed to be detected at a distance of up to 200 km in the front hemisphere (against the background of the earth - up to 170 km) and up to 80 km in the rear hemisphere (up to 50 km against the background of the earth).

      "Super-low-profile" targets with an image intensifier of 0,01 m2 are detected by the Irbis at ranges up to 90 km. The detection range of ground (surface) targets is: for a target of the "aircraft carrier" type (EOP 50 m000) - 2 km, "railway bridge" (400 m1000) - 2-150 km, "boat" (200 m200) - 2-100 km, "installation of operational-tactical missiles" and "group of tanks" (120 m30) - 2-60 km. "
      magazine "Vzlyot" No. 8-9 2007, p. 49

      As you can see, the OTR launcher or "group of tanks" is detected by the Irbis radar at a shorter distance than an ultra-low-profile air target with an RCS of 0,01 m2.

      It is worth adding to the same that this "group of tanks" must be moving, not stationary. And yes, in order to try to distinguish wheeled vehicles from tracked vehicles on the radar indicator, you need it to be a millimeter-wave radar indicator.
  25. -1
    18 August 2019 22: 47
    Quote: NAVI
      I will add. And with blades too :-) They are not metal, glued honeycomb. Foil, something like that. Of the metal at the top, there are only parts of the swashplate. So the blades will not "shine" especially. And on RLD. About ten years ago, they were looking for those who still flew to the DC in Kamchatka. They planned to retrain. It turned out, who are retired, and who are in the coffin - the radiation is strong, oncology.

    And do you think the foil is not metal?
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 23: 18
      FOIL. WHAT IS TYPE.
      I don’t know what. Not crunches, crumbles at hand. If interested, find on Wiki.
      Then I had one thought in my head that I successfully kicked off from the direction of the issue of Ka-25 in Novonezhino. :-)
      In short, it looks like something very frivolous and fragile.
  26. -3
    18 August 2019 23: 22
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    But we will not fight with those who have Su-35!

    And the F-22 doesn't have cartography either! The F-22 is generally a shedEvEr of design thought, not only is there no mapping on it, there is no KSC and OLS on it from the word "absolutely", it is absent as a class!
    And some idolaters shouting "AFAR-AFAR!" are trying to bring doubts into fragile brains and give out a device with obviously the worst:
    Power
    Sensitivity
    Sector Review
    And with limited functionality
    for the achievement of the Higher Mind and Highly Organized Matter!
    :-)))
    1. 0
      18 August 2019 23: 44
      Quote: E.S.
      And the F-22 also has no map mapping!

      Calm down already ... the mode of mapping the Earth's surface with synthesized aperture (SAR), promised from the first day of production (as well as some other features), the Raptor received radar in Increment 3.1 ..
  27. -1
    18 August 2019 23: 27
    Quote: NAVI
    FOIL. WHAT IS TYPE.
    I don’t know what. Not crunches, crumbles at hand. If interested, find on Wiki.
    Then I had one thought in my head that I successfully kicked off from the direction of the issue of Ka-25 in Novonezhino. :-)
    In short, it looks like something very frivolous and fragile.

    And I don’t need a wiki, I have a specialized education :-))
    And you do not know what kind of material you are claiming that it does not reflect electromagnetic waves.
    Let me get interested in, and on the basis of what such a conclusion is made?
    :-)
    1. +1
      18 August 2019 23: 50
      Iron reflects, not iron worse. :-)
      Let the blades reflect, only a helicopter is worse.
  28. -1
    19 August 2019 00: 37
    Quote: Town Hall
    Quote: E.S.
    And the F-22 also has no map mapping!

    Calm down already ... the mode of mapping the Earth's surface with synthesized aperture (SAR), promised from the first day of production (as well as some other features), the Raptor received radar in Increment 3.1 ..

    Oh, thanks for the good news!
    In fact, this means that two more AFARs were hung on each side of the aircraft, and that the aircraft’s health will also not increase.
    And how much money were still planted in one and a half hundred more or less living aircraft? Somewhere half of the money carrier for the money, right?
    :-)
  29. 0
    19 August 2019 01: 24
    Quote: NAVI
      You probably mean the classic layered production. From ships. In Avach Bay, during the period of threat, staging is possible only from boats. And the depths acc. Honestly, I did not delve into it. But in 175 OPLVE there were no minesweepers. Their main task was for the CFC. I think that in the presence of four submarine divisions, this would be provided if necessary. And usually the OVR with their minesweepers and icebreakers was carried out to the diving point or to diff. In the war, Ka or Mi with the HCV dipped at the dive point. So it was in the plan.

    Helicopters from the mid-60s are attracted to mine in the west and are very active. Both for the detection of mines by sonar, and for undermining. In the latter case, the helicopter lowers a speaker or magnetic trawl into the water, which imitate the passage of the ship.
    1. +1
      19 August 2019 09: 17
      You are right.
      But I try to write about what I saw and what I was doing.
      I did not engage in trawling.
      And I’m not interested in dragging information from the network. Everyone is able to do this.
  30. 0
    19 August 2019 11: 20
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    If it freezes, it is hard to see, but it is blind at low altitudes.


    There is VZOI, there is an AWACS helicopter, ship radars, if it is included in the grid, then it will see with someone else's "eyes".

    The helicopter crashes, but the plane is flying. Range changes. I'm talking about Doppler.


    Yes, but in almost all radar in the world, the notch of the Doppler shift from the blades begins at the most with 40 km. It really is, but on average 25-30. Further, a helicopter hovering above the water cannot be detected. Almost no one.

    Before writing the article, I skimmed through a dozen Western articles, by the way, there are surprisingly many of them on the internet, you drive in something like "problem of hovering helicopter detection" and this drops out ...

    In general, now the situation is as follows - a turntable with a powerful radar with a height of up to 50 meters, should detect a fighter approaching it at 1000-1500 meters somewhere 30-40% further than the fighter will detect a helicopter. It's not much, but it's a chance. And if you shoot on external guidance, then the launch of the UR will occur before the fighter notices the "arrow".

    Even if a helicopter detects a fighter earlier, this will not give him a chance to shoot him down. On modern fighters, the STR will immediately put the source of radiation on the map to the pilot. And then for a helicopter, everything can end badly, given its low speed. In 2 swoops, he, as a fighter, cannot leave the battlefield.
    1. +1
      19 August 2019 16: 25
      Of course stupidity. Conduct the air situation on the ship and warn. A fighter may not necessarily work with its own radar. Peshkov's version of the Su-24m, the Karpaty missile defense system did not even grunt.
  31. 0
    19 August 2019 18: 44
    I haven’t been to Orlans, but according to all open data, there are not two helicopters as on a military-industrial complex but three
  32. 0
    19 August 2019 20: 07
    Sea Hawk with Hellfire ATGM. Pay attention to the optoelectronic turret
    This is not a turret, but rather an optical-electronic module brought forward on the console. sad hi
  33. 0
    20 August 2019 12: 43
    I liked the article.
  34. 0
    20 August 2019 18: 56
    Well, you can still consider the issue of adapting transport ships for basing helicopters, at least for an intermediate landing and refueling. For example, by analogy with the American "Arapaho" system.
  35. 0
    21 August 2019 18: 08
    Good afternoon! With all due respect, I have to subject your article to harsh criticism. Given the large volume of your article and the very limited time for my comment, I have to go not according to the importance of "flaws", but according to their "location" in your article. The points:
    1. To create a trawl towing helicopter based on the Ka-27 of any model is NOT REAL. Compare its carrying capacity with the carrying capacity of the Sikorsky MN-53, if not enough - read the literature on the demining of Egyptian waters by Soviet ships, including the Leningrad helicopter carrier. Even the Mi-8 did not have enough carrying capacity, the Ka-27 caught up with the Mi-8 only in theory, in practice it is inferior in terms of carrying capacity. The only more or less combat-ready minesweeper helicopter was created on the basis of the Mi-14, but the military was not interested, and this machine is exclusively coastal. Result: in Russia there is NO helicopter capable of becoming a full-fledged ship-based minesweeper helicopter, just like there are NO ships capable of accepting an MH-53 class and size helicopter into the hangar, except for the Kuznetsov.
    2. It is not necessary to "put" Ka-25Ts and Ka-31 in one basket, they are completely different, primarily BY PURPOSE, machines. The Ka-25Ts simply "broadcast" a picture of the surface situation to a ship firing a P-35 at over-the-horizon range. Accordingly, the characteristics of the radar, communication facilities, etc. "sharpened" for this narrowly special task. Electronic warfare and self-defense means are not provided at all. The Ka-31 is the first and so far the only REAL AWACS helicopter in the world, the British "alterations" of the Sea King "nervously smoke on the sidelines" in terms of the capabilities of the radar and data processing systems. The Kamov machine can provide at least a ship connection, even a ground grouping with FULL information about the situation in the air and on the water, and carry out the guidance of fighters, air defense systems, central control units for strike complexes in automatic mode. The trouble is one: the organization of round-the-clock air duty requires a MINIMUM of 4 such helicopters. The result of the replacement of the AWACS helicopter with the AWACS ship was clearly demonstrated by the Sheffield destroyer. And the number of Ka-31s in the native fleet is simply touching: less than that of the Indians and Chinese, even separately.
    3. As for the Ka-52K. The helicopter, in fact, turned out to be very successful ... for the USMC. It surpasses even the latest Cobra models by two heads. But in the Russian Federation there is no ILC, the fate of a very good car is predetermined. As for the airborne radar, let's operate with facts. The very theme of replacing a single Ka-50 with a two-seater Ka-52 was dictated not by Turkish and other competitions, not by other external reasons, but only purely internal ones. Having got involved in a competition with Mil Design Bureau for a ground combat helicopter, Kamov Design Bureau understood perfectly well that their brainchild should not just surpass the machine of the OKB. A mile, but to surpass it decisively, otherwise the military will choose a more familiar brand. The stake was made on everything new, incl. for armament: the ultra-modern complex "Whirlwind". But he was never brought to mind. The Su-25T modification died without being born, for the Ka-50 it was a much heavier blow. Mil OKB staked on the good old "Storm" and won. "Kamovtsy" had to make a two-seater car, first of all, due to the replacement of the main complex with the modernized "Shturm". I made this historic retreat with one goal - to convince you that it is impossible to put a "serious" radar on the Ka-52K and "adapt" it for launching anti-ship missiles, all the reserves of carrying capacity were spent on the second crew member and the heavier Raduga-Sh equipment.
    4. With regard to Lynx and Sea Skew anti-ship missiles. Lynx is really a very good helicopter, but why don't you mention anywhere that Sea Skew carries a semi-active radar seeker and aims at a target, "highlighted" by the carrier? In the case of using elementary interference, such a pickup is disrupted. By the way, you have surpassed even official London about the effectiveness of the use of Lynx in the First Gulf War: the British claim only 4 reliably sunk targets.
    5. Now a few technical questions:
    a) Which US Army helicopters have "foldable main rotor blades"? And what is a "main rotor" in general?
    b) please indicate which "guided missiles" were used by the American Sea Hawks in the 1991 war?
    6. With regard to the capabilities of airborne radar aircraft and helicopter. The good old Soviet air defense missile system "Osa" could detect and shoot down hovering helicopters thanks to the "Doppler effect" you mentioned from a rotating propeller. The current radars with AFAR, installed on fighters of the 4+ generation and later, allow detecting, "capturing" and launching an UR even at a helicopter on the ground with a rotating "main rotor". Unlike 20 or 30 ton vehicles, originally designed for air combat, even a 12 ton helicopter simply will not "lift" a normal V-V radar and missile defense system.
    Overall rating: sorry, but your article is just "blah blah blah" about nothing.
    1. 0
      21 August 2019 20: 35
      1. To create a trawl towing helicopter based on the Ka-27 of any model is NOT REAL. Compare its carrying capacity with the carrying capacity of the Sikorsky MN-53, if not enough - read the literature on the demining of Egyptian waters by Soviet ships, including the Leningrad helicopter carrier. Even the Mi-8 did not have enough carrying capacity, the Ka-27 caught up with the Mi-8 only in theory, in practice it is inferior in terms of carrying capacity.


      The issue is not the load capacity, its drawback is easily leveled by hooking a self-propelled trawl with SPU or ramp and introducing additional displacement elements into the design of the trawl.
      This is something that was not finalized in the USSR, but could have been modified if such a task had been set.

      The question is that the helicopter should be able to pull the trawl overcoming the hydrodynamic resistance of water. This is also solvable.

      In addition, we are talking about a new modification of the helicopter, and not about altering the existing model, and the new modification a priori should be with new engines, and, possibly, screws.

      2. It is not necessary to "put" Ka-25Ts and Ka-31 in one basket, they are completely different, primarily BY PURPOSE, machines.


      I am aware, but it was a matter of principle possibility and it makes sense to use a DRLO helicopter from a URO ship.

      The trouble in one: the organization of round-the-clock duty in the air requires at least 4 such helicopters.


      According to the experience of the same "Moscow" - 16 machines ensure the presence of two of them in the air 24/7. Where did you get the number 4 for the helicopter? This is too optimistic. Have you come up with it yourself?

      to convince you that it is impossible to put a "serious" radar on the Ka-52K and "adapt" it for launching anti-ship missiles, all the reserves of carrying capacity have been spent on the second crew member and the heavier Raduga-Sh equipment.


      There the difference is less than the 100 kilogram. Crossbow with all equipment - 127, Beetle-A - 220. A radar for Katran should have been made of it. You do not want to say that a helicopter cannot be lightened by 100 kilogram?

      4. With regard to Lynx and Sea Skew anti-ship missiles. Lynx is really a very good helicopter, but why don't you mention anywhere that Sea Skew carries a semi-active radar seeker and aims at a target, "highlighted" by the carrier? In the case of using elementary interference, such a pickup is disrupted.


      I do not propose to copy this missile - this is an example of how helicopters were used against the Navy in a real war. Sorry, but I have no other examples for you.

      By the way, you surpassed even official London about the effectiveness of the use of Lynxes in the First Gulf War: the British claim only 4


      1. What is your evidence?
      2. But seriously, it was about the affected, i.e. disabled ships, and not about those that definitely went to the bottom. Read carefully . However, a data source is welcome. Yours.

      5. Now a few technical questions:
      a) Which US Army helicopters have "foldable main rotor blades"? And what is a "main rotor" in general?


      Main rotor.
      Everyone has.



      b) please indicate which "guided missiles" were used by the American Sea Hawks in the 1991 war?


      The SH-60B from the moment it was put into service could use the Hellfires.

      The current radars with AFAR, installed on fighters of generation 4+ and later, make it possible to detect, "capture" and launch an UR even on a helicopter on the ground


      The question is in the distance - and this is described in detail in the article. Detect something will detect, but at a distance of 20-30 km, no further.

      Unlike 20 or 30-ton vehicles originally designed for air combat, even a 12-ton helicopter simply will not "lift" a normal V-V radar and missile defense system.


      But how then did they raise the X-35? And Ka-27, and Ka-52K? Did you miss the photo in the article? The trouble is sadness ...

      Overall rating: sorry, but your article is just "blah blah blah" about nothing.


      Well, it just turned out that blah blah blah is your comment. It turned out ugly, right? You have to be careful. Less pathos, do not spit on the monitor from rage, do not bulge your eyes while typing, do not lose self-control from righteous anger, follow the speech and keep to the limits of decency, etc.
      1. 0
        22 August 2019 14: 56
        Well, don’t be dashing while it’s quiet. Now let's go point by point.
        1. Once again I ask you to read the materials about the mine action of the USSR fleet in Egypt. After that, you will immediately have no questions about the carrying capacity of the machine and the ability to "pull the trawl, overcoming hydrodynamic resistance". How do you imagine it? In the face of tough enemy fire, our pair of helicopters (and one even the Mi-8 could not cope with the trawl) calmly approaches the ship, hooks the trawl in the "hover" mode and then "trawls" the fairway. Hooray! The enemy simply silently "smokes on the sidelines" and does not even think to interfere. Order of the Taburetkin to him (the enemy) for this. I don’t know where you got such serious knowledge from, but experience is experience. And if in the USA, with their RICH combat experience in the use of carrier-based aircraft, the only minesweeper helicopter is the MH-53, I have to send you back to its flight characteristics, first of all, the carrying capacity.
        2. And where does "infa" about new engines come from? Are the VK-2500s already out of date? Or "Marshal Taburetkin" has already been able to master their serial production in Russia? Reminds the story of the GTE for ships: the Ukrainians, they only made a heat exchanger and a reducer, but for five years (!) We could not do ANYTHING in return.
        3. I didn’t come up with a figure about 4 helicopters; the British took it out after the 1982 war and fully supported our Navy General Staff, if it’s interesting, I’ll send the names of the materials about it.
        4. The helicopter can be lightened by 100 kg. For example, remove one crew member (80 kg according to the standards of the Air Force and Airborne Forces of the USSR), an ejection seat for him (about 40 kg for the K-1M), and so on and so forth. And if it’s real, then R.A. Belyakov announced (and paid) a bonus in the TOP 100 rubles. for every kilogram of weight loss MiG-23 MLD (read his memoirs). Price issue.
        5. My "evidence" - the official website of the UK DoD. Read on.
        6. Just like the UH-60, the MH-60 can carry the Hellfire ATGM with the indispensable condition of its (helicopter) retrofitting. You yourself gave an example of this retrofit in the photo.
        7. Sorry, neither the Ka-27 nor the Ka-52K "raised" the X-35, they only raised its model. The main thing is not even the carrying capacity, although 2 X-35 is the maximum combat load of the Ka-52K. The main thing is that these helicopters have nothing to give the control center for this missile and provide its guidance. That's all.
        8. Regarding the issue of helicopter combat against airplanes. So far, there are facts of helicopter strikes against ground targets under the dominance of enemy aircraft in the air. There are facts of helicopter air battles against helicopters. But there is NONE fact of the influence of helicopters on the situation of air supremacy. So excuse me, spit less on the monitor and on your readers yourself, rely more on REAL facts, not fiction. Good luck
      2. 0
        22 August 2019 15: 20
        Yes, sorry, forgot about the "foldable main rotor" on US Army helicopters. Back in 1991, at the Chelyabinsk airport, I took part in a meeting of the C-5 in a "desert" camouflage, bringing "humanitarian aid" to the USSR in the form of canned bread made in Germany and other "happiness" that their soldiers did not eat even on war. Because the airfield was intermediate for them (after refueling, the "boards" went to Magdeburg), either in two or in three cars, Apaches were the "cargo". We were not allowed to "touch" them, despite the then rapprochement with the United States, but we not only saw the "main rotors", but also "felt". Unlike helicopters of the Navy (although at that time I did not even have a general idea about them), they (blades) are not folded by a special system (manual or mechanical), but are disconnected and stacked along one remaining one. Before attaching (manually) three more blades, the Apache is absolutely incapable of combat.
    2. 0
      27 August 2019 10: 33
      Quote: samaravega
      1. To create a trawl towing helicopter based on the Ka-27 of any model is NOT REAL. Compare its carrying capacity with the carrying capacity of the Sikorsky MN-53, if not enough - read the literature on the demining of Egyptian waters by Soviet ships, including the Leningrad helicopter carrier. Even the Mi-8 did not have enough carrying capacity, the Ka-27 caught up with the Mi-8 only in theory, in practice it is inferior in terms of carrying capacity. The only more or less combat-ready minesweeper helicopter was created on the basis of the Mi-14, but the military was not interested, and this machine is exclusively coastal. Result: in Russia there is NO helicopter capable of becoming a full-fledged ship-based minesweeper helicopter, just like there are NO ships capable of accepting an MH-53 class and size helicopter into the hangar, except for the Kuznetsov.

      really
      the question is what would the characteristics of the trawls match the capabilities of the helicopters
      and this is real (taking into account the fact that the requirements for trawls have changed significantly since the 70x - taking into account the appearance of legal acts)
      1. 0
        27 August 2019 15: 58
        Well, if so, bring at least one helicopter trawl (which is in service in any country), affordable Ka-27.
        1. +1
          11 September 2019 16: 38
          Quote: samaravega
          Well, if so, bring at least one helicopter trawl (which is in service in any country), affordable Ka-27.

          helicopter trawls besides the USSR were in the USA (and respectively in Japan), and they were made under the acc. helicopters (and SiStelien is not Mi-14BT at all)
          Those. Your question is absolutely incorrect. There are helicopter capabilities (let's say Ka-27) and based on them, you need to make a trawl. Moreover, it can be done "in a couple of days" - for example, like an Australian magnetic + blunt Venturi tube as an acoustic one, - and already the result, albeit on a "line", will be
          1. -2
            11 September 2019 20: 25
            I have to correct you: helicopter trawls were ONLY in the USA, to whom they were supplied, that's another question. Except for the Sikorsky MN-53 of various models, not ONE helicopter will lift them. In the USSR, there were trawls that TWO helicopters of the Mi-8 (Mi-14) type HAVE RECEIVED from the shore or from the ship. My question is absolutely correct. If you can make a trawl for the Ka-27 "in a couple of days" - do it and patent it. You will get a lot of money, because the carrying capacity of the Ka-27 is comparable to the Merlin, Super Puma, etc. And they cannot carry trawls. The navies of France, Great Britain, Germany and many other countries will queue up in front of your house. Not to mention the Russian Navy. Forward!
            1. +1
              11 September 2019 21: 16
              Quote: samaravega
              I have to correct you: the helicopter trawls were ONLY in the USA, to whom they were supplied, this is another matter

              but I don’t need to correct me, because I know the question too well;)
              Quote: samaravega
              If you can make a trawl for the Ka-27 "in a couple of days" - do it and patent it.

              to do - it will work
              to patent - no (because "everything was invented before us")
              why there’s no verto PLO - the question is not for me, as recently as a couple of months ago I prepared a very thorough and detailed technical note on this issue (and all the proposed works within the framework of GOST 307 (!!!))
              and it was not just "fucked up", but everything is much worse ...

              and don’t tell me what to do, I know MUCH BETTER
              1. -2
                12 September 2019 15: 59
                Well, if YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, then bring at least one FACT, and who, what and where you cooked, without specific NUMBERS and FACTS - this will not work even in a culinary show. Good luck.
                1. +1
                  12 September 2019 20: 55
                  I gave ENOUGH FACTS:
                  https://topwar.ru/156486-chto-ne-tak-s-nashimi-tralschikami.html
                  https://topwar.ru/156497-chto-ne-tak-s-novejshim-pmk-proekta-12700.html
                  if the situation requires - a plane and helicopters PMO (there are docks)
                  WHILE the hope that everything will be done "over the head, and not through .opu" is
  36. -1
    22 August 2019 15: 28
    Quote: AlexanderA
    indicate at what range the radar APG-79 (V) 4 under the same conditions detects and takes on the support of say a helicopter NH90FFH

    At maximum nominal range.
    In addition, the aluminum hippo-shaped hull of the helicopter itself is another target for radar detection.

    PS EPR aircraft for comparability is given in the frontal, and not in the lateral projection.

    PPS I have already said that even in the composition of the fiberglass main rotor blades there are extended metal elements (at least the edges of the blades, electrical heating wiring). Plus now the shell of the blades is made not of pure fiberglass, but in a mixture with carbon fibers.

    PPPS I gave facts that are obvious to those who are in the subject of helicopter designs.
    1. 0
      22 August 2019 16: 42
      I agree that the radar of a fighter even of the 4th generation (not 4+ with PFAR or 4 ++ with AFAR) "takes" the helicopter at a range that ensures the use of medium-range missile launchers with a GOS PARL, especially an SD with ARGSN. The helicopters now and in the foreseeable future are not even planning radars with similar characteristics and the V-V missile launcher, except for the lightest R-60 or MANPADS modifications. So an air battle of a helicopter against an airplane is for Bradbury (I respect him very much) and other fantastic masters. Isolated cases against the background of the mass destruction of helicopters by the side that has won air superiority are possible, but they will not affect the outcome of the confrontation.
    2. 0
      24 August 2019 18: 22
      At maximum nominal range.


      It is a pity that you do not know her.

      In addition, the aluminum hippo-shaped hull of the helicopter itself is another target for radar detection.


      If you read the article, you would know that the reflected signal from the helicopter fuselage in low-altitude hovering mode for a fighter radar is lost against the background of reflections from the underlying surface. That is why it is necessary to detect and maintain a helicopter in hovering mode using Doppler reflections of the blades of a rotating main (tail rotor).

      I will not in my own words, quote the patent:

      https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2260815C2_20050920

      "The invention relates to the field of radar and can be used to solve the problem of detecting and recognizing a helicopter against the background of an underlying surface with a stabilized false alarm level. Detection and recognition of a helicopter is carried out in two stages. First, the detection of individual spectral components of the echo signal of a rotating helicopter blade is performed using a rank criterion Moreover, before determining the ranks of these components, their amplitudes are preliminarily reduced by a factor of T relative to the samples of amplitudes obtained in adjacent time intervals of probing a given area of ​​space. false detection, the value of which is set by the value of the multiplier T. The achieved technical result is an increase in the ability to detect and recognize the helicopteragainst the background of the underlying surface using on-board radar. "

      I have already said that even in the composition of the fiberglass rotor blades there are extended metal elements (at least the edges of the blades, electrical heating wiring).


      I have already quoted you that the EPR of a composite rotor blade in comparison with the EPR of a metal blade is reduced by 7-10 dB (5-10 times). If we take the rotor blade specially designed to reduce its EPR (the blade of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, which was not accepted for service), then the EPR was reduced by a factor of hundreds.
  37. 0
    22 August 2019 17: 40
    The author, tell me, if a helicopter hovering over the sea turns on the radar, it remains "invisible"?
  38. 0
    23 August 2019 11: 35
    Quote: samaravega
    The Ka-31 is the first and so far the only REAL AWACS helicopter in the world, the British "alterations" of the Sea King "nervously smoke on the sidelines" in terms of the capabilities of the radar and data processing systems. The Kamov machine can provide at least a ship connection, even a ground grouping with FULL information about the situation in the air and on the water, and carry out the guidance of fighters, air defense systems, central control units for strike complexes in automatic mode.

    Regarding the full information, you still got excited. If you fight with the DPRK, then maybe. But against modern aviation radar capabilities are no longer quite perfect.
  39. 0
    24 August 2019 18: 06
    Quote: NAVI
    The time difference in detections is "eaten up" by the difference in speed. The helicopter sees that they will kill him now, but has no time to do anything.


    Depends on air-to-air missiles with which the helicopter is armed. Naturally, a helicopter with a good X-band radar should be armed with an airborne missile system of the appropriate range (when launched at near-zero speed and altitude). For example, the Israeli Derby airborne missile system with a launching accelerator, when used as part of the Spyder-MR air defense system, has a range of 50 km and more than 16 km in height.
    1. -1
      24 August 2019 21: 23
      There was such a thing under the USSR, it was called a musical processor. Well, a radio, a player and a tape recorder, a TV in one box. Bulky and constantly breaking something.
      Sorry for the example. Well, you can still take the five-turret tank in the USSR.
      This is a type of helicopter "and the Swiss and the reaper"
      I am a little familiar with the work of the crew, there are no extra people there, nor is there room for additional equipment. Attempts amers replace Eagles, Corsair to FA-18 is not very ....
      Versatility is possible, but not everywhere. Personally, I can’t imagine .... we had an example to attach an intelligence station to an IL-38 aircraft. The third navigator did not have time either there or there.
  40. 0
    24 August 2019 22: 59
    Quote: AlexanderA
    the reflected signal from the helicopter fuselage in the low-hover mode for a fighter radar is lost against the background of reflections from the underlying surface. That is why it is necessary to detect and accompany the helicopter in hovering mode using Doppler reflections of the rotor rotor blades (tail rotor)

    Today, there are ways of radar target selection against the underlying surface like dirt (Doppler is just one of them), for example, polarization https://edrid.ru/rid/219.017.a3ee.html
    1. 0
      11 September 2019 23: 08
      Indicate fighter radar which use the polarization method of selection of stationary targets on the background of the underlying surface.
      1. 0
        11 September 2019 23: 50
        Su-xnumx

  41. 0
    12 September 2019 17: 47
    but are there any alternatives (new models) as an anti-submarine helicopter - for the KA 27, or as an AWAC, - the KA 31 ?!
  42. 0
    19 October 2019 19: 01
    I immediately disagree with the author on the basis of the defeatist mood of the article.
    An aircraft carrier fleet is very necessary, possibly at Pacific Fleet, and possibly quite on SF. And we need to do this little by little.
    The right people are in the right place. Just yesterday we talked (for example, with a comrade very responsible).
    I must say, he said a lot of interesting things. Not just interesting, but interesting.
  43. +1
    25 October 2019 18: 40
    IMHO, the best would be to copy the American experience and create your own "Black Hawk". Station wagon for the army and navy (for him the only one). Decide and leave “on land” either Mi-28N or KA-52 (N). For money, as the author correctly noted, there will be little and no more money in the foreseeable future.
    In such circumstances, one cannot repeat the experience of “squandering” the resources of the military-industrial complex of the times of the Union.
    1. 0
      9 July 2021 03: 28
      then it is easier to spend money on new ships suitable for basing mi-8 and KO
      1. -1
        15 July 2021 10: 24
        Or finish off the Ka-62?
        The Mi-8 is much outdated, it is larger.
        1. 0
          22 July 2021 14: 58
          Well, yes, larger, that's the point, the new ships will have smaller restrictions on the dimensions of the aircraft, and will be able to use land aircraft, if necessary. As a result, we will receive benefits in exports, military-industrial stability and the potential for modernization for real tasks in a theater / large-diameter operation environment.
          1. -1
            23 July 2021 02: 19
            Less restrictions? That is, with a larger hangar?
            But it will eat up more space on the ship.
            And the problem of Mi-8 obsolescence will not disappear anywhere.
            Including, the greater vulnerability of its layout (2 engines together, not spaced apart, as in the UH-60 / Ka-62).
            1. 0
              23 July 2021 16: 39
              There is no point in what you are proposing. There is a question here
              -) or "smaller and more expensive helicopters on smaller and more expensive ships"
              -) either "larger, massive and cheaper helicopters on larger ships",
              in my opinion the second option is better, and the point is not only in the dimensions of the hangar, but also in the mass scale of the aircraft (hence lower cost), in the fuel reserves on the aircraft (hence the range), in weather resistance according to flight characteristics, in the payload reserve, and much more.
              For example, now the Kamovites are limited by the dimensions of the hangars and can neither increase the diameter of the propeller, nor the dimensions of the suspension, nor the fuel supply, but in other countries there are no problems with this, the principle I voiced is implemented there ..
              1. -1
                23 July 2021 23: 11
                For example, now the Kamovites are limited by the dimensions of the hangars and can neither increase the diameter of the propeller

                Why increase the propeller diameter on an existing production helicopter?
                or "smaller and more expensive helicopters on smaller and more expensive ships"

                Helicopters New, primarily.
                The ships can be of any size.
                There is much more space on the Arleigh Burkes than on the corvette 20385, but the Hangars are for Blackhawk, and not for Super Stalion.
                or "larger, mass-produced and cheaper helicopters on larger ships",

                Cheapness - due to the use of an outdated design.
                New helicopters will still have to be accepted.
                By default, the Mi-8 is not ready for operation at sea; it will have to be adapted for adaptation. The same chassis needs to be strengthened and much more.
                in the fuel reserves on the aircraft (hence the range), in the weather resistance according to the flight characteristics

                Practical range:
                SH-60 Seahawk - 834km,
                Mi-8AMT - 800km,
                Ka-62 -720 km (civilian version).
                So that?
                The ships need universal helicopter, analogue of SH-60.
                The Ka-62 is more a relative of the French AS.365 Dauphin, whose practical range is ... 860 km.
                The Mi-8 is outdated, you still have to change it.
                1. 0
                  23 July 2021 23: 57
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  in the fuel reserves on the aircraft (hence the range), in the weather resistance according to the flight characteristics

                  Practical range:
                  SH-60 Seahawk - 834km,
                  Mi-8AMT - 800km,
                  Ka-62 -720 km (civilian version).
                  So that?

                  Well, first of all: I wrote not about classics, but about Soviet ship co-axes (ka-62 is a classic)
                  and secondly: throw out these numbers, and forget about them, because they are taken from advertisements and wikipedias, you need to look at helicopters graphics with dependences on carrying capacity, air density and flight speed, there the dependences are not linear and the error can exceed 50%.
                  thirdly: you add larger cars to your comparison in the form of CH-53, but better compare with the V-22, and do not forget to make an allowance for additional fuel.
                  1. -2
                    24 July 2021 00: 11
                    throw out these numbers, and forget about them, because they are taken from advertisements and wikipedia

                    Of course, but these figures are given for the same conditions: Max filled tanks, no load.
                    For example, with a Max load (3-5t), the Mi-8 has a practical range of 550 km.
                    It is logical to extrapolate this data to the rest of the helicopters I mentioned.
                    By the way, SiHok takes up to 3 tons of payload.
                    CH-53

                    This is Super Stalion, I mentioned it.
                    And it is NOT used on destroyers. I saw this helicopter only in the photo AB and UDC.
                    And its practical range ... also 800 km fellow
                    Moreover, the new version of 2015 (Sh-53k king stallion)
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2021 13: 13
                      one more time, for the blind, look for a DEPENDENCE Plot, not a finite number!
                      A helicopter is not a machine! in the graph you will see that the range does not fall linearly, that is, for the dull ones: "by increasing the speed or weight of the load, twice your range may fall not 2, but 4/6/8 times" (this is an example, not real values !). For the same aircraft, ships and cars, the dependence tends to linearity and therefore it can be reduced and reduced there, but for helicopters, for example, the higher the speed, the greater the percentage of fuel is spent on braking (for the dull ones: it is spent on moving the blade forward in the direction of motion). ( and such hemorrhoids not only with speed)

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      CH-53

                      its Practical range ... also 800 km fellow
                      Moreover, the new version of 2015 (Sh-53k king stallion)

                      This is with basic tanks, in reality there are several times more because of the higher carrying capacity. In any case, after bringing to a single common denominator, convertiplanes will lead due to the absence of the main drawback of rotors.

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      CH-53

                      And it is NOT used on destroyers. I saw this helicopter only in the photo AB and UDC.

                      There are already features of different tactics and strategies with reference to the theater / large-scaled battalion, to describe the laziness, but you can compare the US fleet, the Russian fleet and the fleets of other countries, while first of all pay attention to the peculiarities of using various small / medium-sized DVDs / UDCs, for example, Singaporean endurance and similar ones when used as a PLO (ideally, it is generally advisable to sit down and play with yourself in tactical-strategic simulation games, with drawing on the map (this makes understanding easier and faster)).
                      1. 0
                        26 July 2021 23: 21
                        A helicopter is not a machine!

                        So I gave the example of helicopters, amine cars.
                        You are now declaring that the comparison of the performance characteristics of aircraft is meaningless (seriously?).
                        with helicopters, for example, the higher the speed, the greater the percentage of fuel is spent on braking (for the dull ones: it is spent on moving the blade forward in the direction of movement)

                        They told the obvious truth.
                        Practical range counts for cruising speed.
                        Everything is simpler: Mi-8, Ch-53 are heavier, have greater drag and a more voracious engine (to compensate for this resistance, to provide the required load capacity).
                        World practice has shown that an SH-60 / AS365 machine is optimal for a ship's helicopter (EM, frigate, corvette).
                        With a passenger capacity of 5-6 people, large, sideways sliding landing doors on both sides, etc.
                        And our designers are slowly, but go in the same direction, which pleases.
                        The Mi-8 is structurally obsolete. It is more vulnerable to fire (2 engines nearby, can be hit with one hit).
                        This is with basic tanks, in reality there are several times more because of the higher carrying capacity.

                        Several times?
                        fuel capacity:
                        2,286 US gal (1,903 imp gal; 8,650 l) internal in two cells per sponson (15,545 lb (7,051 kg))
                        2,400 US gal (2,000 imp gal; 9,100 l) auxiliary internal in three cabin tanks (16,320 lb (7,403 kg))

                        Approximately 2 times if you drive the marines out of the cockpit and load it with fuel.
                        It will still be possible to hang another 7,5 tons under the helicopter for cargo transportation (take a Humvee, for example).
                        The SH-60 can carry both external fuel tanks and inside the cockpit.
                        Its fuel consumption is less: it is lighter, has less drag at the same speed as a larger car.
                        By the way, the ferry range (with fuel to the eyeballs) of SiHok is 3700 km.
              2. -1
                23 July 2021 23: 39
                HS-60


                AS.365 Dolphin


                Ka-62


                Ka-60


                Found this article:

                https://ysia.ru/mnogotselevye-vertolety-ka-62-pridut-na-smenu-mi-8-na-dalnem-vostoke/amp/

                If the Ka-62 will replace the Mi-8, what is the point of shoving the "old men" into the fleet?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"